SAN ELIJO HILLS TO VOTE ON RECALL OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS

SAN ELIJO HILLS TO VOTE ON RECALL OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Due to concern surrounding various issues in the recent election for the San Elijo Hills Board of Directors, a group of neighborhood representatives have joined to sign a petition calling for the recall of the new Board of Directors.

As a result, there will be a new call for candidates, followed by a new ballot which will ask homeowners if they would like to recall the results of the election, and if so, to vote for new candidates. Candidates who ran in the last election are welcome to re-nominate themselves.

The developer, HomeFed Corporation, has agreed to not place any of their representatives on the ballot, although the one seat occupied by developer designee Hale Richardson will not be up for election. This guarantees that four of the five seats on the Board will be held by homeowners.

The three areas of concern specified in the petition are as follows:

1. There are representatives whose votes were not counted because their neighborhood representative did not attend the meeting on December 8th.

2. There are residents who were not aware that Mary Russell had withdrawn her name, and who otherwise would likely have voted for a different candidate.

3. There are residents who voted prior to the start of the negative campaigning and who subsequently indicated a desire to change their votes, but were not able to do so.

The representatives signing the petition wish to make it clear that this is an effort to make the election fair to the residents casting votes, and an opportunity to start fresh.

208 comments

  • A few things in addition to the above article. First, the facts:

    1. The community by-laws allow for this process if neighborhood representatives covering at least five percent (5%) of the SEH voting population agree. The reps who signed the petition represent nearly 50% of the SEH voting population. That’s more than twice the number of homeowners who voted in the previous election.

    2. This was a totally homeowner-driven initiative, with no involvement whatsoever from the developer. A homeowner discovered that the community by-laws allow for this process, then drafted the petition. A homeowner arranged to contact and meet with the neighborhood reps. And a homeowner asked HomeFed to agree not to run in the re-election.

    3. With the developer not running, this can truly be an election about the issues and the candidates’ qualifications — as it should be — not a “homeowner vs. developer” battle like we just experienced.

    4. The cost to hold a new election is covered by the existing San Elijo Hills Community Association budget.

    Now, my opinion:

    In addition to the petition points, I firmly believe that the campaign run by the “Vote 4 San Elijo” block was offensive and misleading,. You may or may not agree. However, please review the three petition points outlined in the article above and see if you don’t agree that at least ONE of them justifies a recall and re-election.

    That’s all for now. I welcome anyone who has questions to contact me at rgreitzer@cox.net.

  • Hey, I’m sorry some votes didn’t get counted. That’s terrible but is ultimately the responsibility of the neighborhood reps that failed to meet their duties.

    This isn’t the first time in history that somone felt a campaign was “offensive and misleading” after the fact.

    A recall is a waste of time & money, and a general distraction. None of the reasons expressed above show any benefit to the community for a do-over.

    Until you show a benefit of value, I’ll pass on the recall.

  • A candidate withdraws her name in the middle of the campaign, yet her votes still count, giving her a spot on the board over candidates who stayed until the end? That’s acceptable to you?

    • Yes, that is acceptable to me. It happens often in Federal and State elections. Do you think its cheap or logistically easy to re-print and distribute ballots?

    • To Aaron,

      This may be late in the game, but I just saw this post and felt this is important to put perspective on how the first election was handled.

      Is it acceptable when the neighborhood reps did not have ample time or clear information pertaining to the details of the vote and their responsiblities?

      This is our community and those who are voting yes for the recall are taking a stand and holding people accountable for the actions taken. By voting yes for the recall…. this is giving our community a second chance to learn from the past positive or negative, and make more informed decisions the second time around. At the end of the day, we all want what is best for our community. This is our home.

      • What on earth are you saying? Is this about the reps who didn’t show?

        Did the neighborhood reps not know what the responsibilities and powers of the office were when they RAN for rep? If so, they had no business in the job in the first place. I certainly did before I put my name forward as an alternate.

        The “time” issue here is that the board had no time to do anything, never mind anything that would merit a recall, and that the neighborhood reps acted prematurely, and without any polling of their neighborhoods, not anything related to the prior election.

        We agree that we want what’s best for our community: spending $8K that didn’t need to be spent, upending a duly conducted election, exacerbating the negativity and division of the prior election, and setting a precedent that a small group, in private, without polling the neighborhoods, can override the will of the voters, doesn’t seem to fit the bill for that.

  • The budget provides funds for a recall? You have to be kidding right? If it does, it is proof that the previous board didn’t work out as the voters in this election decided. What is the cost of this recall election? Can those who specifically request this be assessed? This will be the first in what I will assume be reasons our HOA dues will start to increase. Let’s MOVE ON! We really need to waste more time on another election because some people don’t like the outcome?

    Rules and policies were in place before this election and now that people don’t like the outcome there is a do-over? Please.

    How about listing the individuals who failed in their responsibilites to vote for the people their community desired.

    A prime example of a complete waste of time and a waste of our homeowner’s associations resources.

    • From what I understand, the San Elijo Hills budget is designed to cover a full election each year, although there will not be another election for two years. So, you could say that they’re simply spending funds allocated for an election that wouldn’t otherwise be used for that purpose. I believe that’s what they mean by the cost being covered by the existing budget.

  • This is absurd. I voted early and now want to change my vote? Then don’t vote early. Wait for all the facts.

    The process was followed, the developer hacks were ousted and now we have to do a do-over? Something smells here.

    What are the names of the petitioners?

    • I second that motion from David! Who are these Petitioners?

      • I answered that below, since Ron et al kept avoiding it:

        Quote:
        Ron Greitzer, Morgan’s Corner. could this be YOU, “Ron”? How about you grow a pair and come out of the shadows and say who you are, and what you are for or against? Why didn’t YOU run for the board?

        Shawn Morgan, Crestview (one of the neighborhood reps who failed to do their job)

        Gary Gidner, Woodley’s Glen (MY rep, I’ll be sure to find out how to contact him and understand his position)

        Ray Carlson, Luminara

        Sean Sims, Cambria

        Sandra Greefkes, Meridian (who was not a 2009 rep, for a neighborhood that was unrepresented and whose votes did not count)

        Amber Lindsey, Westridge

        Karen Smith, Cedar Crossing

        Mario Caballero, Mariner’s Landing (one of the neighborhood reps who failed to do their job)

        Greg Harris, Springfield
        Endquote

  • Developer hacks?? homeowners don’t always make the best leaders…you can see this in HOA’s around California…but I also agree that developers have conflicts also…but they have a lot of skin in the game and here in SEH maybe more then homeowners at this stage.

    It is too easy to jump all over the developer about the SEH town center, trees, landscaping etc….but if you attend meetings and meet the people you will see that one of the most passionate, informed and generous forces in SEH is the development team…David have you spoken to them personally, have you attended a board meeting?

    We support the re-vote and look forward to other candidates campaigning because you know the SEH4 will blow out a new campaign and use all the power it can muster from it’s new status. Hold on the SEH4 will grab your attention again I’m sure!

    San Elijo Hills needs a mix on the board…not a voting block that may think they have a mandate for change from 19% of the residents! They do not have our support or mandate.

  • Good call, Conrad. Are you folks prepared to have our community run by a board of people who have never run a community? If the developer had done as bad a job as you all imply, most of us would have moved out a long time ago. Be honest, most of us love it here, and that’s at least partially BECAUSE of the developer and their passion for San Elijo Hills, not in SPITE of them.

    • Don’t we have a professional Management company that assists the board with its responsibilities and duties? Isn’t there one member of the board who served in the previous board term? I understand the newly elected board members ran as a block of candidates, but don’t they deserve the opportunity to prove themselves for at least one or two meetings?

      • Yes , i agree the newly elected board should be allowed to serve and show that they are capable of directing this community. They do have the management company and legal counsel to assist them.

  • A recall is a complete waste of homeowner’s money…my guess is that the developer has aligned with a few disgruntled homeowners and is pushing the recall…what a sad way to start the New Year.

    • Charles, while I respect your right to disagree with the recall movement, your assumption is incorrect. The movement was initiated by 10 of San Elijo’s 22 neighborhood reps (not just “a few disgruntled homeowners”), with no developer participation or prodding at all.

      One other rep didn’t sign the petition for conflict-of-interest reasons, and two others didn’t sign for privacy reasons. However, all three indicated that they agreed with the petition. Your neighborhood rep should be able to confirm that he/she had no contact whatsoever with the developer during this process.

      Remember, the developer has already agreed not to run in the re-election, so they’d have nothing to gain by pushing for a recall.

      Finally, just in case anyone wonders, the recall movement was also not initiated by any of the losing candidates.

      • Can someone in the know (Ron G?) please point to the section in the CCRs that provides for this recall so we can review the provisions?

  • p.s. The FIRST thing any new Board should do is get rid of these complicated, arcane (electoral college-type) voting rules that require your neighborhood rep. to appear (completely out of your control) or you lose your vote. Let’s just have a straight percentage vote. If it works for the city its should work for SEH. Ther eshould be no recall re-vote under these stupid rules.

    • pps. When was the petition signed and submitted? Is the Jan 4 meeting realted to this petition? If so, has there been enough (and proper) notice?

      • David . . . I’ll answer your questions to the best of my ability.

        First, regarding your question about the documentation that allows for this process. Section 6.3 of the community by-laws allows for the calling of a Special Meeting if requested by neighborhood representatives representing at least 5% of the community’s voters. And section 7.6 allows for the removal and re-election of Board members at a Special Meeting. Those two sections combined make this a “by the books” initiative.

        As mentioned previously, neighborhood representation well exceeded the 5% threshold, with representatives representing 49% of the community signing the petition. If you add the one who declined for conflict of interest reasons, and the two who declined for privacy reasons, that number jumps to 63%.

        Second, I totally agree with you about the “votes don’t count if the rep doesn’t show” issue. If someone takes the time to vote, their vote should count. Period. That should be an issue taken up with the new Board (whoever that winds up being), with a community vote taken to change the rule.

        Third, the signatures were gathered this past weekend and were submitted to Walters Management to send to the Board yesterday (Tuesday) morning.

        And finally, yes, the January 4 meeting is related to this. The neighborhood reps (of which I am one) received an email from Walters Management today saying that there was a gathering of the Board last night, and that the petition is indeed on the January 4 agenda. Technically, according to the by-laws, enough notice has been given. Although they probably couldn’t find a LESS convenient date than the first evening back after a long holiday weekend. Which sort of flies in the face of an email the reps received from the Board this morning, in which they said that they’d try to schedule meetings at convenient times.

        I hope that’s been helpful. I’m happy to answer any other questions you might have, either here, via private email, or on the phone.

  • Who was invited to this “Gathering” last night? Specifically did neighborhood reps receive an invitation to attend last night’s board meeting? if so who attended?

    • No neighborhood reps were informed or invited. In fact, the entire meeting seems to be in violation of the community’s by-laws (trust me, I’m becoming familiar with them). Section 7.18 says that all regular and special Board meetings must be open to all community members, that the time and place of the meeting must be posted in a conspicuous place within community common area, and that the community must be given four days notice prior to the meeting.

      Actually, I don’t know ANYONE who was told about or invited to the meeting, which leads me to believe that when the Board got the recall petition Tuesday morning, they panicked and called an illegal private meeting to map out a defense strategy. First meeting of the new Board, and they’re already playing fast and loose with the rules.

  • 1.) It does not appear that proper notice was given for neighborhood rep meeting as the CCRs. a.)The “notice” did not describe the subject matter of the meeting as is required. b.)The “notice” did not advice it was a special meeting of the neghbor reps., rather it simply stated the Board had called the meeting. c.) special meeting cannot beheld less than 35 days after petition as set forth in section 6.3

    2.) The Board and Walters and reps. will face litigation if they violate the CCRs or by-laws.

  • David … the special meeting that the Board has called for January 4 is not the special meeting that the neighborhood reps have called as part of the petition. It’s a meeting they called during the illegal “gathering” they held this past Tuesday night, after they’d gotten word of the petition.

    Walters has advised that the agenda for the January 4 meeting will be posted prior to the meeting, but neighborhood reps have been advised that the agenda will include the following discussion items:

    1. Election of Officers
    2. Petition to Recall and Elect New Board Members
    3. Appointment of Inspector of Elections
    4. Scheduling Special Meeting of Neighborhoods (as requested in the petition)
    5. Homeowner Forum
    6. Potential Formation of an Executive Committee Due to Developer Board Member Conflict of Interest

    Neither Walters (who did not call last week’s meeting) nor the reps (who were not invited to last week’s meeting) are in violation of CC&Rs, The new Board, however, is making decisions that ARE in violation, and their “potential formation” of an executive committee that would exclude the legally appointed developer designee would seem to indicate that they’re prepared to continue walking a dangerous tightrope.

    It is important that all neighborhood reps and as many homeowners as possible attend this meeting, to let the new Board know that their actions are unacceptable.

    • Ron,
      I appreciate your efforts to provide some information to the community through this forum even though I think we may be on opposite sides of the recall.

      I look forward to thoroughly reading the CC&R’s and the By-Laws to fully understand what is what to make an educated decision regarding this recall petition.

  • I think one of the issues I have the most trouble with is the lack of good current and historical data that is available online through the association website http://www.sanelijohills.net. There is a great medium to post meeting agendas, minutes and announcements. The fact that the only agenda’s available are the November and December 09 meeting and the last set of meeting minutes available are the June 22 2009 meeting minutes is a bit unacceptable. These should be posted sooner (within a week of the meeting) with the most recent minutes being (pending approval).
    Lastly, shouldn’t neighborhood representatives be on the directory? I don’t see my representative on the directory. Are they even in my neighborhood any more?

  • AJ . . . first of all, thanks for your responses, and I sincerely appreciate folks asking questions.

    To this question: “Isn’t there one member of the board who served in the previous board term?”

    Technically yes. Hale Richardson (from the developer) was on the previous Board. Which is why it’s disturbing to me that the new Board wants to appoint an “executive committee” that specifically EXCLUDES the only current member with any Board experience and history.

    To this question: “don’t they deserve the opportunity to prove themselves for at least one or two meetings?”

    In my opinion, the fact that their first meeting was held behind closed doors (in direct violation of the community by-laws) already “proves themselves” by bringing their true intentions out in the open. Seems they don’t want ANYONE disagreeing with them. And given their secret meeting, it seems that they don’t want anyone even knowing what they’re doing.

    To this question: “Lastly, shouldn’t neighborhood representatives be on the directory? I don’t see my representative on the directory. Are they even in my neighborhood any more?”

    I know people who do not list their contact info in the directory for privacy reasons, but the full list of reps is in the Library section of the site, under “General.” I’m sure either Jean Salvia or Teresa Petro from Walters can get you your rep’s contact information. I don’t know what neighborhood you’re in, but there’s even a good chance that your rep is one of the ten that signed the petition!

    Finally, I agree with you 100% on the fact that all Association documentation should be available in the Library section of the site, if not right there on the first page of the site. For example, the announcement of the upcoming January 4 “special Board meeting” was only emailed to residents for whom Walters has a current email address. Posting the announcement and the agenda on the site would make sure more folks know about it.

    Anyway, I know you’re not in favor of the recall (at least not yet), so I’ll make the same offer I made above, which is to answer any other questions you might have, either here, via private email, on the phone, or face to face over a cup of coffee.

    • If you have decieded to be a neighborhood rep then you need to be available for your neighborhood and post a phone number or email so they can correspond with their reps about concerns and neighborhood info. That’s their responsablility is it not

  • Interestingly, the agenda for the special meeting to be held this coming Monday (Jan. 4) at 6pm, and which has been posted on the sanelijohills.net site, has had an interesting phrase added to one of the agenda items. It now says:

    POTENTIAL FORMATION OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DUE TO DEVELOPER BOARD MEMBER CONFLICT OF INTEREST (PENDING CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL)

    They added “Pending consultation with legal counsel.” That may be an indication that the Board already thinks they may be in trouble, particularly after violating the community by-laws by holding last week’s secret meeting. If the points in the petition weren’t enough to support a recall, being on shaky legal ground is just one more issue.

    This meeting should be interesting, to say the least.

    • I believe that that the neighborhood reps are acting on what they think and not their whole neighborhood. So its about a dozen homeowners that are complaining. The facts are that 432 homeowners cast ballots and a large majority voted for the SEH4. I do agree the rep thing has to be changed but the uncounted votes would not have changed the results of the election. Also the candidates do not become board members until they accept their winning nomination just as a write in candidate would if they won, so the Mary thing is totally crazy, she got the votes, she accepted, simple as that. Everyone should stop crying about that one. I guess if i don’t like the results of this revote we can do it over again. Now thats a crock of you know what.

      • The neighborhood reps are chosen to hold their position in order to represent their neighborhoods. If they didn’t feel that their opinion about the petiion would be shared by the people they are chosen to represent, they wouldn’t have signed. Only 19% of the community voted in the election. 50% of the reps signed the petition, and 63% of the reps agree with recall (if you count the three who didn’t sign it). You do the math.

    • Who said it was a secret meeting? I heard differently. Its funny how people start things about others. It usually only takes one.

      • Of course it was a secret meeting. Did the Board meet? Yes. Was the community either told about it or invited to it, as is required by the community by-laws? No. How is that anything BUT a secret meeting?

  • The cost of the recall is immaterial relative to the costs the new rogue board will cause in legal fees and damage to the community. The problem is when an association/community is being run well nobody feels compelled to change anything or become involved in the association. When you see a few board members spend thousands of dollars to campaign to be on a “volunteer” HOA board of directors, there is usually an agenda. At the meeting last night, it was clear they had an agenda and the three ring leaders danced around the topics/questions about what they were planning on changing. I have seen a number of HOA boards, some good, some great and some bad. This one is one of the bad ones. Wether it be for their cousin that is a landscaper, a friend who owns a management company or they want to change the communities’ landscaping, it is always something that usually isn’t in the interest in the community. As far as developer input, they have the same interests as us homeowners. They want to maximize home values and insure the theme of the entire community is consistent and matches the architects vision. I am an original homeowner from 2001 and have always been proud of the way the community looks, low management fees of $82 for me, and excited about the new commercial areas. I don’t think the developer is an enemy here. Remember, the master developer only sells the land, they didn’t build your house. I think we need to know what this new board is trying to do. I think the new board is underestimating the power this community holds, we took down Wal-Mart and I think we will take down a few shysters.

  • Let me start by asking ALL INVOLVED to STOP the NEGATIVITY!!! My husband Tom came home from the meeting last night with his head down and a broken spirit. Let me set you straight”My Husband is NOT a Shyster!!! I looked up the word “Shyster” in the Dictonary, it means, “one who defecates” a laywer who uses unethical or tricky methods.” Tom is a good Man, a good Husband, a good Father and Grand Father! Yes, Tom was asked to run for the board. He was asked because of his back ground in Horticulture. My Husband thought long and hard about the responsibilty of being on the board before reaching his decision. Having lived is a wonderful master planned community called Weston, and serving on the board as a landscape advisor, “On a side note”. The beauty of a Homeowners assocation is that it is run by the Homeowners! Tom felt experienced, privileged and honored to run.Tom and I agree the campaign took a negitive turn and it should not have. On that we ask for your forgiveness.

    Now for a few of you! Tom showed me the E-Mail letter dated Friday, December 11, 2009. It was mailed to certain Reps and homeowners. Let me first start by saying that “Two Wrongs Do Not Make It Right”. That is All I will be saying at this point!! I ask that thoes of you in question re-read the E-Mail and ask yourself, “what direction are you and this E-mail heading” I am not sure what I am going to do with this letter. I have a lot of praying to do before I reach a decision. I know one thing for sure I will NOT Stand by and allow any more NEGATIVITY or underhanded action from ANYONE!! I am in love with San Elijo Hills and I will do “Whatever It Takes” to keep this a positive community. I am open to any and all constructive feedback! Let us All start 2010 on a positive note!
    Deborah

    • I think that what everyone agreed after last night is that no one is happy it had to come to this. That’s why the recall will allow everyone to have a fresh start.

    • Deborah, I am sorry your husband was caught in this, but he made a choice to run with a block of candidates and as a result, will most likely be recalled. I am hoping, from here on out, the recall will be about SEH and what is best for the community, not the interests of the board. It is a shame it had to come to this point. As for the e-mail, it was poorly written. Contrary to what the homeowners on the board felt, the developer was not in collusion with the author of the emai.. The developer was “on board” not to place their candidates back on the ballot for the recall election. This time, if your husband is voted in again, the people will have elected him with their eyes open.

    • Deborah,

      The only right thing to do with that e-mail is post it for all the world to see. As long as the genesis of this whole mess stays in the dark, the progenitors can pretend to be upstanding, honest, and have only the best of intentions.

      If the e-mail says what I think it says, they will be proven for what they are.

      If it doesn’t reflect badly on them and their cause, they would have posted it a long time ago.

      The truth will set you free. Post the e-mail.

  • The biggest problem is the board’s animosity towards the developer. To my knowledge none of them have served on an HOA board before and they seem hell-bent on excluding the only experienced member (the developer), not a smart decision. This is a complex HOA with a lot of resources and needs to be ran by clear-headed individuals who don’t have agendas, which from last night seemed like they did.

  • I’m not sure what the problem is about the email that was circulated at last night’s meeting. It’s just one individual who is putting out feelers to see if other homeowners share in his concerns. Once he got feedback that enough people did, he went ahead with the recall process. Obviously enough community reps felt the same way, and hence you have a election recall. I don’t see the problem in that. If a large number of homeowners are disatisfied with the results of the election and it’s “Our Association” we should be able to do something about it.

  • I was at last night’s meeting and spoke out against the new board’s negative campaign, and their animosity towards the developer and the developer rep chosen to sit on the board. This is a great community. My husband and I have lived here since June 2001 and have no intenion of moving. It is because of the developer and their vision for this community we chose to move and raise our family here. I definitely do not understand the present board’s animosity. As for the recall, the process was started legally by Ron Greitzer. He spoke with members of the community, researched the bylaws and gained support from many neighborhood reps. It should be noted that Ron is not running for the board and does not have a vested interest except for his desire for have a positive board who will serve the enitire community. This recall may be difficult, but in the end, it will be what is best. If the board is reelected, then any doubts of the process should be eliminated and the people will have spoken.

    • You may like the developer, and Walters, but the vast majority of votes were cast for the SEH4, who ran on a clear platform of putting the management contract and landscaping out to bid, and putting more pressure on the developer to hold them accountable for their abject failure to deliver on their promises in any reasonable timeframe. Your side lost the election, and so you are using procedural tricks to get a do-over.
      A crater where we should have a towncenter, and a weedlot where our community worship center/meeting hall is supposed to be, 10 years on, is not what was promised.
      RE “Executive Committee”: If the board is discussing matters related to how to deal with the developer, it is totally inappropriate for the developer rep to be present. Their responsibility is to recuse themselves and leave, as their fiduciary responsibility as a board member conflicts with their responsibility to protect the interest of their employer. Failing that, it is totally reasonable for the other board members to form a committee that excludes the developer rep.
      I’m not saying that the current board has followed proper procedure in all cases, but I don’t see that they have had sufficient time, certainly not before the recall petition was circulated, to take actions that would merit a recall, which is a drastic action. You don’t invalidate an election just because you didn’t like the result.
      You’ve opened a can of worms that will make the negativity of the campaign seem tame, and set a precedent that could well make SEH ungovernable, unless the rules on how a recall can be done are changed.

  • For those of you who’ve been following the events of the recall campaign but were not able to make last Monday’s meeting, here’s an update.

    1. About 40-50 residents attended the meeting.

    2. Since the meeting had some controversial agenda points, the Association’s legal counsel was supposed to attend the meeting. However, without approval from the entire Board, new Board member Jeff Tuller called the lawyer and told him that his presence was not needed. This got the meeting off on an argumentative point, and it went downhill from there.

    3. First agenda point was election of officers. Michael Young made a motion to appoint Jeff Tuller as President. Hale Richardson indicated a desire for a more balanced-minded President, but the motion passed 3-2. Mary Russell and Hale were the two “no” votes.

    4. There was a lot of discussion that seemed to indicate homeowner disenchantment with this Board. Specifically, the negative campaign, the secret meeting, and the need for an executive committee. The Board did a lot of double-talk and dancing around the questions.

    4. Turns out that the secret meeting on December 22 was held because Tuller had gotten wind of the petition. Jean Salvia from Walters, plus Hale, had been asked to leave the meeting because Tuller believed them to be behind the recall petition.

    5. Tuller’s concern over a Developer/Walters conspiracy to drive the recall was also the reason for his desire to form an “executive committee” that would exclude the Developer. However, once it became clear in Monday’s meeting that the petition and the recall drive were exclusively homeowner-driven, Tuller withdrew his request to create an executive committee.

    6. By the end of the meeting, even the Board agreed that the recall campaign should move forward.

    7. The ballot will include two measures. First, should be Board be recalled (yes/no). And second, if the Board IS recalled, please vote for new candidates. The process will follow this timetable:

    a. A new call-for-candidates mailing has already gone out
    b. Candidates have until January 21 to return their candidacy form
    c. There will be a “meet the candidates” event at the Visitors Center on February 2
    d. Neighborhood District Meeting will be held on March 10
    e. Special Meeting of the Neighborhoods (“election night”) will be held March 18

    Now, some personal observations based on Monday’s meeting. I believe that this Board, with the exception of Hale Richardson and Mary Russell, just goes along with whatever Jeff Tuller wants. That is, when he even tells them what he’s doing (as witnessed by unilateral cancellation of the appearance of legal counsel). They have a self-serving agenda that I suspect includes bringing on vendors with whom they have personal relationships. In their few short weeks of being our Board, they have already violated community by-laws several times. Monday’s meeting showed that this Board lacks the skills — organizational, leadership and communication — needed for us to entrust them to run our community.

    You’ll have your chance to make your feelings known when the recall ballot comes out. Vote for a recall and vote for new candidates, or vote to keep the current Board. That’s your choice. But this time, make sure you vote knowing what’s at stake for San Elijo Hills.

  • My biggest concern about all this is that this is all happening in THIS forum, instead of the actual Association website. We PAY for the association website, and it is next to useless as a community communications forum.
    Personally, I find this whole mess typical of politics in this country, and CA in particular: completely dysfunctional.
    Can someone provide some facts:
    1: Who started the recall? Post the e-mail here.
    2: Who are the neighborhood representatives?
    3: Which ones failed to perform their proper duties in the original election? They should be recalled too.
    4: Who voted which way in the recall?
    5: How much is the recall going to cost?
    I feel that the developer has seriously failed to meet the commitments they gave us on the town center and most other community issues. Everything has been years late and half-baked. I also think Walters is doing a very mediocre job of maintenance and service, especially given how much $$ they get.
    AFAIK, Tom Cappelazzo HAS been on HOA boards before, and has extensive experience in drought tolerant and fire resistant landscaping.
    At least the developer got the message that people were fed up with their failure to deliver on their promises and hasn’t tried to stack the board with their reps in the recall. The SEH4’s election was a vote against the never ending delays and broken promises. If the developer had actually done what they promised, then none of this would have happened.
    I really wish we had just let the board get on with their job, and seen how they did it, as opposed to starting this ridiculous intrigue and fight, which is wasting time, energy and $$ that could be better spent improving our community.
    So, precisely, what IS at stake for San Elijo Hills? I haven’t seen anyone make any statements of substance about what the board is or is not doing IN THE COMMUNITY, just complaints about negative campaigning, adversarial posture towards the Developer (that’s what they were elected for), and process.
    Where’s the beef?

    • 1: Who started the recall?
      The ten neighborhood representatives who signed the petition, and who represent 49% of the SEH voting population. A copy of the signed petition is posted in the Library section (under “General”) of the San Elijo Hills community website.

      2: Who are the neighborhood representatives?
      A list of all neighborhood representatives is also posted in that section of the community website.

      3: Which ones failed to perform their proper duties in the original election?
      A list of the communities who did not have representation at the final election meeting was mentioned in the article posted on this site the evening of the election:
      http://sanelijolife.com/2009/12/08/san-elijo-homeowner-association-board-results/

      4: Who voted which way in the recall?
      The actual recall vote hasn’t happened yet.

      5: How much is the recall going to cost?
      Approximately $8000 (about $3.55 per household) or less than half of one percent of the total SEH budget.

      • Where’s that e-mail that started the recall, Ron? If you are who I think you are, you wrote it, so share ti with us ALL. Stop hiding, and doing things behind people’s backs, which is exactly what you have accused the board of doing. They, at least, had a website and flyers detailing their positions and agenda. What, exactly are you FOR?

  • Nice way to answer the questions without really answering the questions. You gave accurate, but incomplete, and therefore useless, answers. You could have posted the actual answer, instead of requiring I dig for it.

    Last I checked, links worked in WordPress, why not post the link instead of just text?

    So, who, exactly, is it that is operating in the shadows? Who are you a beard for?

    One specific question you point blank dodged: 4. I want to know which neighborhood reps signed for versus against the petition.

    The whole “Neighborhood rep” ridiculousness for a small local entity notwithstanding, I want to know WHO my rep is, and HOW they voted. I would hazard everyone else really wants to know too.

    I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this is Walters trying to save themselves a lucrative contract. 25% overhead, hey, if I could run my business with 25% SG&A and make money, I’d be ecstatic!

    FWIW, I delved into the info as best I could, and here are the answers fleshed out as best I can:

    1: Who started the recall?
    The ten neighborhood representatives who signed the petition, and who represent 49% of the SEH voting population. A copy of the signed petition is posted in the Library section (under “General”) of the San Elijo Hills community website.

    The link is:

    http://www.sanelijohills.net/ipgold_images/hoa_library/295.pdf

    Ron Greitzer, Morgan’s Corner. could this be YOU, “Ron”? How about you grow a pair and come out of the shadows and say who you are, and what you are for or against? Why didn’t YOU run for the board?

    Shawn Morgan, Crestview (one of the neighborhood reps who failed to do their job)

    Gary Gidner, Woodley’s Glen (MY rep, I’ll be sure to find out how to contact him and understand his position)

    Ray Carlson, Luminara

    Sean Sims, Cambria

    Sandra Greefkes, Meridian (who was not a 2009 rep, for a neighborhood that was unrepresented and whose votes did not count)

    Amber Lindsey, Westridge

    Karen Smith, Cedar Crossing

    Mario Caballero, Mariner’s Landing (one of the neighborhood reps who failed to do their job)

    Greg Harris, Springfield

    2: Who are the neighborhood representatives?
    A list of all neighborhood representatives is also posted in that section of the community website.

    And they changed between the election and today, so there are two lists:

    They, as well as the rest of the docs, can be downloaded from here:

    http://www.sanelijohills.net/cgi-bin/ipgold/hoa.cgi

    3: Which ones failed to perform their proper duties in the original election?
    A list of the communities who did not have representation at the final election meeting was mentioned in the article posted on this site the evening of the election:
    http://sanelijolife.com/2009/12/08/san-elijo-homeowner-association-board-results/

    Which means the people who didn’t do their job, and the neighborhoods unrepresented were:

    Carmel: No representative in 2009, Now Laura Meyers with Danny Cohen as alternate. Can’t blame people who didn’t have the job at the time.

    Creekside Cottages: Sub association appointed, no name.

    Crest View: Shawn Morgan, who is one of the signers of the petition, and still holds the post despite their failure to discharge their office conscientiously.

    Mariner’s Landing: Mario Cabellero, who is one of the signers of the petition, and still holds the post despite their failure to discharge their office conscientiously.

    Springfield: Greg Harris, who is one of the signers of the petition, and still holds the post despite their failure to discharge their office conscientiously.

    So, it looks like over 50% (3/5 = 60%) of the recall signers are neighborhood reps who failed to properly discharge their office by appearing @ the election. Who gets to recall them for breach of fiduciary responsibility?

    4: Who voted which way in the recall?
    The actual recall vote hasn’t happened yet.

    See above, that is what I meant.

    5: How much is the recall going to cost?
    Approximately $8000 (about $3.55 per household) or less than half of one percent of the total SEH budget.

    $8K is $8K, and would go a long way for community events, instead of this circus.

    So, “Ron”, how about you be more forthcoming, honest and open about who YOU are, who pays you, and your agenda? You’ve engaged in a stroke of midnight act of power politics, but have not presented any credible alternative agenda, slate of candidates, or even been fully forthright about who you are, and who your allies are.

    You want a “New Beginning”, then come into the light. Do as the SEH4 did, put up a website with a real agenda, a picture of your face, and what you are about; or scurry back under the sink.

    • Tom Bynes… We do not know who you are?? Because of Ron and this website you seemed to be capitalizing on the information provided. If we did not have this website, then you and the rest of the community would not be as informed as you are today. Please show some respect to the the creator of this website and Ron. Ron has worked extremely hard with integrity, respect and passion for the cause and committment to our community. I am grateful and appreciative for the time and effort put forth by this website and Ron. If you are not going to be more proactive in this cause, then I ask you to be respectful.

      • My name is Tomas Byrnes
        I am a homeowner in Woodley’s Glen. 1743 Blue Water Lane, and I’m in the phone book.
        I’m not “capitalizing” on anything, I’m responding to a situation that I consider to be ridiculous, and where all the participants are clearly not putting everything out in the open.
        You’re correct that this is the only forum where this can be discussed, and that fact alone is a good reason to dump Walters, as they provide very poor Internet services.
        Like I said: Come into the light.
        Who is Ron, who are you?
        What is the plan if the recall succeeds?
        Who is running for the Board?
        What, exactly, was the genesis of the whole recall in the first place?
        Why recall the board if Ron wasn’t running?
        Where is that original e-mail?
        As far as “being respectful”: I’m not calling names, but I don’t feel the need to KowTow. You create a public access website, you need to deal with the public. that means dealing with disagreement, especially when you precipitate a political battle using last minute (or actually, ex-post facto) power politics in a small group behind closed doors.
        If you want to have your own little discussion group for those who agree with you (kind of like the “Executive Committee” of the board you are complaining about), then go ahead and create one.

      • Tom: WOW !!!!

        It is interesting that you are making such gross assumptions about Ron yet you do not have all your facts. Ron should not be the sole responsible member of this community to provide what you are requesting. He is not running for a board position and is not being paid for his efforts. This I know. His payment is the mere desire for our community to be the best it can be. Your questions are good ones. I suggest moving forward to attend the meetings that are being held, so you can hear the information first hand. Reach out to the current board and Hale. Reach out to Walters so your suggestions are heard. I recommend you contact Ron so you can see for yourself with further in depth dialogue that he does not have a hidden agenda. TAKE ACTION!!!

        I personally think it is great for individuals to speak their mind. Express their different ways of thinking and looking at situations. This is how we all learn and grow and come to terms about what each of our own positions are about the issues. No where in my comment did I mention that “you” or anyone else needs to agree with me. I apologize for this misconception.

        Even though this is a public access website, I as a member of this community and finds this website informative, I still do not think the dialogue needs to be disrespectful to each other. We as a community are better than that…

        I was merely stating your choice of words and how you are expressing yourself.. in “my” opinion did not seem respectful of others. You can still state your position/opinion and disagree with respect. It is that simple.

      • Since Ron started this whole thing, he is the one most responsible to provide information about how, why, and who else was involved. When he responded to my original message, he omitted significant detail that he was well aware of. That smacks of misdirection and concealment to me.
        I’m not being disrespectful, but I am being pointed. Since Ron et al decided to create a conflict (a Recall is, by nature, an ugly business), they should expect to take their lumps.

      • I would also point out that it is Ron and co who have accused the duly elected HOA Board of breaking the law, having a hidden agenda, being incompetent, etc. That’s hardly “Respectful”. All while not advancing any alternative agenda or candidates.
        I’ll ask again: What are you people FOR? Who are your candidates?
        When you start throwing accusations and getting into a brawl (and a recall is the closest thing to a brawl in politics), you can expect that others will respond. I don’t knwo any of the SEH4, although I did vote for them because I am tired of the broken promises from the developer and the second rate landscaping maintenance.
        What I do know is that some shadowy group, who are not willing to put themselves forward for election, in a private discussion, have decided to put the community through another difficult election.
        Ron decided to pick a fight. If Ron and his supporters can’t take the heat, they shouldn’t have lit the fire.

      • Tom Byrnes, did you even ATTEND last week’s meeting? If you did, you’d know that Ron wasn’t hiding behind anyone. He stood up, introduced himself, and gave a sincere explanation of the steps he took to coordinate the recall. He has posted on this site under his own name, and gave his email address out in the first comment for anyone who wants to contact him. All you’ve done so far is disparage him. If you’re not going to be part of the solution, at least stop being part of the problem.

      • Elliot: How many people were in town, and available, on the first Monday after New Years? I didn’t even KNOW about the meeting.
        Trust me, I’ll be at the ones going forward. The disparaging (and frankly, defaming) going on here is of the duly elected board, by Ron and his supporters.
        I’ve asked direct questions, which have either been answered evasively, or gone unanswered.
        As of yet, no one has said what the people behind the recall plan to do if the recall is successful.
        What are you people FOR?
        Who are your candidates?
        I’ll be part of the solution: Voting against the recall, and then trying to get our Articles amended so that such a small group of people (5, with no consultation of their neighborhoods) can’t override the will of the hundreds who voted in the election, as well as to end this “if your Neighborhood rep doesn’t show, your vote doesn’t count” nonsense.

      • Enough people were available that about 50 people showed up. And an email was sent out to the community announcing the meeting, as well has having been mentioned on this site. And 10 representatives signed the petition, not 5.

      • I meant 5%, as in the absurdly low representation of neighborhoods required. It would be one thing if the Neighborhood Reps were required to circulate a petition or some other way of sensing their neighborhood, but the current system lets any Neighborhood rep, perhaps with one or two others, pitch the association into chaos. If it’s to be “by the neighborhood”, then it should be over 50% (or better yet 60%).
        I just got off the phone with my Neighborhood Rep, Gary Gidner (Woodley’s Glen), and although the majority of Woodley’s voted FOR the SEH4, he signed the petition because HE, acting on HIS OWN, didn’t like the negative campaign.
        What kind of Democracy is it where a “representative” can willfully try to overturn the vote of those they are supposed to represent, without any attempt whatsoever to canvas them?
        This is worse than the electoral college. What we have here, at least in Woodley’s, is “Faithless Electors”.

  • As member of the newly elected HOA board I would like to say a few thing so all can have the true facts and not just gossip or ‘hear say’. First off the the reason myself, Mary Russell,Jeff Tuller and Michael Young deceided to run for the HOA board positions is because this community is over 80 percent developed and its time for the homeowners to take over the responsability of running this community. The Developer has the communities interest in mind but it also has its own interest to be concerned with, which is why certain homeowner complaints have not been properly delt with. One of which is the Fire Saftey issue which the Developer or should I say the Developer controlled HOA board has said there is no problem even though they approved $2000.00 for a fire expert to tell them there was a problem. That’s just one example. Don’t get me wrong the Developer has done a wonderful job of developing this community and I truly love living here. Did you know that none of the prior Developer board members live here in wonderful San Elijo Hills. The four of us campaigned together because we felt each of us had strong attributes in different ares that would help protect and guide this community in its future affairs. We are not looking to replace any of the current vendors that serve our community. We will make sure our association is run properly and efficiently and with the interest of all homeowners being top priority. From what I have been told, this is the first time there has been any campaigning for a position on the HOA board and all that it take is for one homeowner who does not like the election results to get a neighborhood rep to sign a petition and start the whole election proccess again which will cost the community $8000.00. Were you aware that the Dveloper helped form the By-Laws for this community. Did you know that after this recall proceedure it can all happen again if there is another homeowner that does not like the results and gets his neighborhood rep to sign another petition and then it all starts again.
    Do the neighborhood reps talk to all the homeowners in their neighbohood before the sign the petition?
    Only one of the concerns listed on the petition is valid. The first being that some votes didn’t count because their neighborhood rep was not present at the rep meeting on Dec. 8th. I don’t care for that By-Law but we can change it at a latter with a community vote.
    The second is that some residents who were not aware that Mary had withdrawn her name, and who otherwise would likely have voted for a different candidate. Well for those who did vote for Mary early on and found out she had withdrawn her name, they must have been happy to find out she won and their vote counted. Once you vote that’s that, since when can you retract it. Which brings me to the third complaint on the petition and that is, there are residents who voted prior to the start of the NEGATIVE campaigning and who subsequently indicated a desire to change their votes, but were not allowed. Again, once you vote thats it. Where is it you can change your vote in an election in this counrty? Actually you have an option in voting for our HOA board. You can send your vote in early or wait until later, its your choice.
    The only complaint on the petition that can be changed is the votes not counting because their neighborhood rep was not at the meeting. Do you know that there are some neighborhoods that don’t alternate reps in case their rep is not available.
    It saddens me to see this happening in our community and I do not support the recall.
    At least there will be one good that comes of all this is if the Developer employee’s keep their promise and don’t submit an application for candidacy then the board will become homeowner controlled.

  • I feel sorry for this Tom guy, one because he sounds like he’s late to the game and two because he just doesn’t get it. Sure there are many people who are against the recall, but they understand the agrument of why they’re are people that support it, if you don’t your just naive. If the early actions of the board is any glimpse on what is to come, it rubs people the wrong way. They’ve only been elected a few weeks and there already breaking policies and procedures, alienated other board members. Sure when they post their complaints with the developer it will be in a forum like this or in a newsletter and not during a live HOA meeting, why…. because you can’t twist the facts if you have a member of Developer right there to call you out on it. For those of you that went to the meeting last week you saw that none of the board members really wanted to comment on what “Problems they had with the developer and why they wanted them out so bad.” Why… because there was a Developer Rep sitting right next to them so they couldn’t get away with telling half the story or leaving out certain details. What the homeowners of this community want is a diverse board of people with they;re own ideas and hopes, who each have a voice and doesn’t let one person (the president) make the decisions for the whole group. Is that too much to ask!!

    • I get it all right.: A bunch of people who don’t like the results of the election are using procedural tricks to overturn it. If you want a certain type of board, then run, or advance candidates, and support them, IN THE CORRECT ELECTION. If you wake up one day and don’t like the results, prepare for the next election, don’t wast thousands of the community’s $$, and more of everyone’s time, on a do over.

      I”m not the one who’s late to the game: I voted in the election, and the candidates I supported were the ones elected. It’s the crowd who have no better reason than they don’t like the board or approve of the tone of the election (as if a recall is likely to be more civil) who are late to the game.

      Recalls are for gross malfeasance, not to engage in an endless re-run of a properly conducted election.

      • Tom, get off it already. Your making a fool of yourself. Don’t you see your the only one complaining? At least the petition group was able to get 10 other reps to feel the same way. Once you can get representatives covering half the community to agree with you, maybe you’ll have a case. In the meantime, remember that one of the thngs that started the whole recall thing was negative campaigning. The idea for the recall is to start with a clean slate, and you’re the only one not being civil.

    • Elliot, I will continue to speak in public against a recall that is completely uncalled for. I’ms sure that you and your “club” dont’ like being called out, and I’m well aware that continuing the clubby, cozy, develeoper/wlaters/board reloationship is what you and the recall proponents want. That, however, is not what the vast majority of those who VOTED in the ELECTION voted FOR.
      I understand the reasoning of those behind the recall, but I don’t agree that ANY of those advance to the level of putting the community through yet another divisive, contentious, expensive and time consuming election process. Negative campaigning is no reason to undo a valid election. IF the board had engaged in gross malfeasance, it would be a good reason. I see no evidence of that, certainly NONE before the recall was launched, which seems to have been almost immediately after the election.

      What I see is a group that saw an election that didn’t go their way, and almost immediately moved to reverse it, long before the board had a chance to do ANYTHING.

      Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that those who support the recall expected that it would be genteel? Whatever about the tone of the election, recalls are, by nature, divisive. When they include allegations such as those now being leveled at the board, they can only become more so.

      As I said, if you cant take the heat, you shouldn’t have lit the fire.

  • This Tom person is comedy, “dump Walters, as they provide very poor Internet services” is he serious with these comments. Maybe you haven’t noticed the down economy in the U.S. lately. There’s not a development in San Diego that not behind schedule. Yeah it’s fustrating but it’s understandable.

    • The fact that Walters, out of their 25% overhead, provide such a poor internet presence, to include making finding agendae, neighborhood reps, contacts for reps and board members, and minutes difficult to impossible is illustrative of the generally poor level of service they provide.
      The reasons to dump Walters are that they are expensive, inefficient (25% overhead), and provide poor service.
      As for the “economy” being the reason the town center is late: it was supposed to be done LONG before the economy tanked, but HomeFed dragged their feet, hoping to sell at an ever higher price, and hosed themselves as well as us in the process.
      The rest of the development is understandable, the crater where we were promised shops and restaurants, and the weedlot where we were promised a town meeting hall and worship center, are not.

      • If the “weedlot” you are referring to is the pie shaped lot above the community center across fromthe Park, it has been sold to “The Church of the Hills” which currently meets in the school auditorium. They will be building their church in the future.

      • That is the “Weedlot” i refer to.

        When we were touring the neighborhood, the pitch we were given was that it would be a community resource that would be shared in common, used for town hall meetings, worship by multiple faiths, and elections.

        Selling it to one church does two things; puts all the cost on one portion of the community (and therefore delays its completion), and excludes other uses.

        Yet another broken promise from HomeFed/Wells Fargo where they have traded their short term bottom line for the quality of life in our community..

  • So who are we going to replace Walters with, The Prescott Companies. For one thing they just got fired by Rancho Carillo (when replaced them with Walters) and secondly one of the co-owners of the Company just happens to be a neighbor of a certain current board member……hmmm interesting. Tell me that’s not a conflict of interest. Looks like we all agree with Tom on one thing……and that is to disagree.

    • Whoever the winner of an open and competitive bidding process is would get the contracts. Walters could bid too, and I’d hazard that they have a lot of slop and wiggle room in their current bloated contract that they could sharpen their pencils on and be competitive.
      IF the board DOESN’T have an open and competitive bidding process, and just hands a contract to their buddies (which is what the current situation is, it’s just the buddies of the developer, as opposed to someone else) then a recall would be in order.
      The e-mail starting this recall was circulated almost immediately after the election, and before the board had any chance to do anything. It is, plain and simple, some people whose chosen candidates didn’t win abusing their power to overturn the expressed will of the voters.

      All the allegations of breach of process relate to how the board reacted to the recall, which is, if true, inappropriate, but an understandable panicked reaction to such a sudden and preemptive strike, and still doesn’t rise to the level of malfeasance that warrants a recall.

      The reason given for the recall, and what I’m berated for here, is to “have a fresh start” and restore civility. First: that’s no decent reason to overturn an election. Second: That’s laughable. Recalls are, by their very nature, nasty. So either the proponents are being disingenuous, or they have no understanding of the likely effects of their actions in reopening this: a prolonging of what was already a contentious election, setting a very dangerous precedent of a tiny number of people being able to overturn a duly conducted election at will, and creating divisions in the community that will long outlive this election.

      • Also, at the meeting last week, the Prescott co-owner (Cynthia Van Cleave) said she didn’t even know any of the Board members. SHE’S JEFF TULLER’S NEIGHBOR!!! Plus, given the secretive nature of this Board, do you actually trust them to be transparent on the bidding process? And that they wouldn’t just find any way they could to give it to anybody but Walter’s? Come on, don’t be naive. Also, the opportunity for a fresh start is not the REASON for the recall, it’s a BENEFIT of the recall. But your mind is so made up already that you can’t see the difference.

    • I’m not being naive, and I definitely find what you say troubling, but that was all long after the recall petition. The recall was started immediately after the election, and the grounds offered are not valid.
      It seems to me that both sides are being underhanded and abusing power to benefit their buddies.
      That having been said, the time to do a recall is when you have real evidence of a need for one, not on the specious grounds offered, and certainly not offering a reason “to create a fresh start” that the mere act of doing a recall in and of itself counters.
      The recall can only make matters more contentious, not less.

  • We get it, you don’t agree with recall. You mention it in everyone of your posts, I think you’ve made you points. Have you seen bids from other Management Companies, how do you know there fees are so astronomically high. I’m pretty sure you would get some low ball bids from other Companies to get an HOA like San Elijo, especially ones recently fired from other develpments. For what to decrease our dues $1-2 a monthm not worth it. I think we need more than poor internet services for justifation on changing management Companies. Your confusing “buddies with the developer” with establishing a good business relationship, which tends to evolve when you work together for several years. I agree they should have a bid process every several years just to keep Walters honest but if the bids are close I don’t see a reason for the change.

    • So we agree on something: regular open bids keep companies honest.
      Perhaps it will also get Walters to take better care of the irrigation and drainage, which at least behind Woodley’s Glen is often broken and running all the time, manhole covers have been missing for months, and culverts are completely silted up (all of which I have contacted them about, but shouldn’t need to, if inspections were timely and thorough); provide the information we need to contact our HOA, and follow the meetings, in an easily found, and timely manner; and bill an overhead rate that is within the realm of sanity.

      I used the poor Internet site as an EXAMPLE, albeit a clear one that they are just not homeowner service focused, not the sole reason to dump them. If, in the course of an open bid, Walters steps up to the plate with a better suite of services, service level commitments, and a more reasonable allocation of funds towards things that actually benefit SEH as opposed to 1/4 of what we spend covering the operating costs of their business, then great!

      • Just a couple of questions: 1) How many HOA meetings have you attended? 2) How come you do not know how to contact the HOA? If you have been here since Woodley’s Glen started, are you not a little late in asking the question?

  • To all you to… people

    1: Say your name, I say mine.

    2: I’m referring to the lack of Board member, Neighborhood rep contact info; or up to date minutes on the website.

    3: I haven’t attended board meetings. I was well aware that the Board was controlled by the developer, and that there was nothing I could do, so I wasn’t wasting my time.

    It’s because the first board we, the homeowners, have had a say in the makeup of has been attacked by part of the incumbent power structure before they even had a chance to take any action that I am so upset. It’s just plain wrong to use the procedural tricks stuck into our Article by the developer to undermine the will of the people.

    I’ve been here since 2005, first phase Woodley’s Glen.

  • What do you mean “attacked by part of the incumbent power structure?” What part of the recall campaign can you prove was instigated by either Walters or HomeFed, since that’s who we can assume you’re referring to? And if it was difficult to take you seriously before, your reason for not attending HOA meetings calls your arguments even further into question. It’s easy to make baseless accusations in an internet forum, not so easy when you have to be face to face with those you’re accusing.

    • Since I post my name, address, and am in the phone book, I’m happy to have a face to face discussion with anyone. I’ll be at the meetings going forward. You haven’t even bothered to post your name “To Tom”.

      The neighborhood reps, who at least in the case of my rep, invalidated the vote of their neighborhood (Woodley’s voted for the SEH4) are part of the incumbent power structure.

      What has happened here is that the voters who voted have been disenfranchised by a legacy of the prior administration, the Neighborhood reps, and for no reason that would rise to the level required for a recall under any reasonable system, but because they CAN, thanks to a set of rules that were put there by the developer, presumably so they could undercut any board they didn’t like, if they found just one compliant Rep (“representing” 5% of the homeowners is an absurdly low threshold to undo an election).

      This whole situation is a disgrace, and a complete violation of how a democratic election process is supposed to work. Under the current system, we could have recall after recall just because someone’s feathers are ruffled.

    • Even by their own inflated numbers (since the reps who disenfranchised their voters by not attending the meeting of the neighborhoods should themselves be thrown out of office for failure to faithfully discharge their responsibilities), the recall crowd only got reps who “represent” 49% of the vote. While that meets the 5% threshold (which is absurdly low), it was done by voting against the neighborhood, at least in the case of Woodleys, and overall by a group who, with the possible exception of Ron, can only be described as “Faithless Electors”.

  • My neighborhood rep informed me of the recall drama and directed me to this blog to see for myself. As a homeowner and dues paying member of the HOA my primary concern is that the HOA Board, Mangement Company, and Developer work for a common goal of upholding property values and the homeowner experience in a reasonable manner. My general take on the recall after reading this blog is as follow:
    1) A few people have taken it upon themselves to waste $8,000 that doesn’t belong to them. If you want this recall so bad either pay for the cost of it yourselves or publicly propose a special assessment to cover the cost of the recall in front of the homeowners at the next meeting. Then you can stand in front of us and let everyone know that the reason you want this recall is because the result of the election wasn’t to your liking and you think that they should appropriate $8,000 that isn’t in the budget to satisfy your whining.
    2) The elected board members have a fiduciary responsibilty to us homeowners and just because they know a landscaping contractor or property management company doesn’t mean they’re going to throw the existing contractors out and replace them with their people unless they can justify their actions via a documented due dilligence review of the contractors and a fair bidding process. What about looking at the glass being half full and maybe just maybe putting these contracts out to bid is a prudent exercise. The way I see it if these people are really dumb enough to think they can rip us all off (which I don’t think they are) then they could also be personally and criminally liable if they actually tried to rip us off. And if they did, it appears that there are clearly enough wannabe legal experts/watch dogs to put them in check and/or bring them to justice.
    3)Uncounted votes: Unfortunately it appears as though the bylaws in their present form create a situation to where this can happen. A reasonable solution is to amend the bylaws to ensure a ballot casted is a ballot counted going forward. And these knuckleheads that are on this blog ripping the neighborhood reps for committing some kind of crime against humanity for not being there should mellow out. Until you know the circumstances that lead to each of their absences you really should cool it. I think it’s safe to say had they known this level of drama would unfold those that could have would have been sure to get someone there. These people are volunteers and do have a life outside of your blog and things come up that are out of their control.

    So the bottom line is you people have successfully wasted $8,000 that isn’t yours to waste. If you want to continue the drama on this blog, go ahead, but not on our dime.

    By the way, before you guys call me out and question my motives I’ll save you the time. My wife and I voted in this election and I don’t have any ties to any candidates, the developer, or the management company. In fact, if you were to ask the management company about me they would tell you I’ve been known to fire off a few e-mails from time to time getting after them about enforcement of the rules relative to the appearance of homes in the community. So I’m not an advocate of any parties involved, I just want what’s best for us homeowners and wasting money is not on that list!

    Sincerely,

    Will

    • Will, you said “you think that they should appropriate $8,000 that isn’t in the budget.” If you had been at the board meeting a few weeks ago, you’d know that the amount IS in the budget. And the amount is a drop in the bucket: literelly less than half of one percent of the budget.

      • Say your actual name, instead of being an unaccountable coward, “To….”

      • Since it’s a drop in the bucket, you write the check.

        Of course, since you’re too much of a coward to say your name, I find it unlikely you’ll man (or woman) up, and pay for what you decided to do.

        Nah, let’s just take a happy meal from every kid in San Elijo instead.

  • Well said Will.

    I’d like to clarify one thing, however, I am only ripping the reps who failed to show up to vote, and then signed the recall. They don’t have the right to put the whole community through this just because they didn’t discharge their office.

    I am also ripping my neighborhood rep (Ron Gidner) for signing the recall, since my neighborhood voted overwhelmingly (of the votes that were cast) for the SEH4, one of whom, Mary Russell, is a neighbor. As I said to him in person: he does not represent our neighborhood, only himself.

    Frankly, this whole “if your rep doesn’t show your vote doesn’t count”, and “Reps representing 5% of the homeowners can call a recall” needs to be changed. Regardless of how the recall goes, we need to amend our articles so that we have direct election of the board by a majority of homeowners, and require the signature of at least more than the number of votes in the prior election for a given candidate (or some higher bar of actual homeowners as a total %) to recall a board member.

    As far as they why and the wherefore: I’ve always applied the “duck test” and “follow the money” to these sorts of things.

    It’s a fact that the recall movement started almost immediately after the election was certified. Who beneftits form that?

    Walters has 4.9 million reasons to prevent any competitive bidding, and HomeFed has whatever liability they think they may have for the failure to complete the common facilities anywhere near schedule.

    People always act for a reason, and that reason usually is self interest or the interests of their family and friends.

    My interest is to have good landscaping, functioning irrigation and drainage, and a downtown where we can walk, eat, and hang out with our neighbors without having to drive to Restaurant Row, Carlsbad, or Encinitas.

    To this day, the proponents of the recall haven’t said what they are for, merely what they oppose, and at least one of the things they claim to oppose: combativeness and divisiveness, is exacerbated by the recall.

    So, let’s all vote NO on the recall, and hold the new board accountable. Good governance demands both.

    • Err, mistake in the post above, my rep is Gary Gidner, the proponent of the recall is Ron Greitzer. Last I checked they hadn’t done an “Avatar” mind meld :-).

    • Tom, I would like to know how it is you know that your neighborhood voted overwhelmingly for the SE4. I was under the impression that votes were confidential. Maybe I am wrong.

      • The vote tallies are not confidential. The specific votes of the individual homeowners are. ALL election tallies of any election, in the US, are open to inspection by by any eligible voter, by law. This applies even to private companies.

        I found out two ways. First, when I talked to Gary Gidner, I asked him why he signed the recall petition. The reason he gave was the negative campaign (if we had a recall for every negative campaign, we’d never stop having elections in this country). Second, I asked him what way the votes in Woodley’s went, and he said the majority of votes cast were for the SEH4.

        Subsequently, I asked Waters for the election tallies, and have received them. I am in the process of preparing a spreadsheet that will show eligible, cast, and by candidate.

  • I’ve posted in the recall notification thread about a letter I received from Jeff Tuller.

  • To the person that wrote the “To Will” response,

    Spoken like a true advocate of inefficient management. Manipulate the numbers to your advantage, by making bigger numbers look small with percentages when you need them small and smaller numbers look big with dollars when you need them large.

    As for my attendance to the meeting, you are correct that I wasn’t there and therefore I didn’t hear that the money is”a drop in the bucket, literally half of one percent of the budget” but if I was there I’d call BS. I seriously doubt we have a line item in the budget titled “board of directors recall” with $8,000 earmarked for it. If you were to poll the homeowners my guess is they’d want justification for spending $8,000 on anything that isn’t budgeted for.

    And if “one half of one percent” is such a small number then why don’t you and all your recall buddies contribute “one half of one percent” of your own annual budget to pay for it.

    Will

    • The $3.50 per unit is not manipulation, just a small number that actually IS small. And a small price to pay to help make sure we have a qualified board of directors. If you think that a McDonald’s happy meal is worth more than THAT, all I can say is I’m glad you’re not managing the SEH budget.

      • $3.50 fro every homeowner in SEH is a lot of mony. Would your prefer that peole wait until it’s hundreds from everyone before they get upset?

        I would prefer the money gets spent on a Happy Meal for every kid, if it is spent at all, as that might make our communiyt better, as opposed to taking hwat was already a contentious election and further prolonging the agony, and pitting neighbor against neighbor.

        One of the platform planks of the SEH4 was that our community events budget keeps getting cut, while overhead and landscaping have ballooned. My “Happy Meal” comment was a light-hearted sub-reference to that.

        Budgeted or not, the $8K being spent here did not need to be spent, and absent this circus would have been available for other purposes this year. Like, say, a Christmas tree that didn’t look like The Ghost of Christmas Future, or a 4th of July celebration with some fireworks.

      • “One of the platform planks of the SEH4 was that our community events budget keeps getting cut, while overhead and landscaping have ballooned.”

        Really? Have you actually LOOKED at the budget to see that that’s simply not true? And that if they HAD, we would have had our HOA fees balloon as well? Which they HAVEN’T? Or that we’d have fewer community association events than in past years? Which we HAVEN’T? At least do your homework.

    • It really stuns me that the proponents of this are totally unwilling to post in their own name, except for Brenda and Ron. So M, are you going to send 007 after me? If so, beware, I have the Q on my side :-).

      Yes, I’ve read the budget, expense and other reports for the past 3 years, and the % of the budget that goes to landscaping HAS increased, while the overhead has increased @ a lower rate and stayed flat as a %, but is still an absurd percentage of the overall budget, IMO.

      As a % of the budget, community events have got less and less, so that while our dues have risen slowly, the quality of our community events has decreased.

      That doesn’t change the fact that we weren’t going to have to spend this $8K this year on an election, and it could have been used for something nice for the community, instead of this divisive recall.

  • Will,

    The $8,000 is in the budget under elections. Currently 8K is budgeted for election costs every year as we will be having elections on a yearly basis.. However, 2010 is the only year we normally would not have an election since we voted at the end of 2009 and some of the members terms would expire at the end of 2011. But the amount has ALWAYS been included in the budget for this year. It was thoroughly explained at the homeowners meeting and the reasons why. I hope I explained it clearly.

    • And we see here why you got the lowest number of votes of any non-developer candidate: You have no understanding of a board member’s fiduciary responsibility of financial prudence.

      Just because it’s budgeted, doesn’t’ mean it should be spent. The goal, in general, is to come in UNDER budget, not at or over it.

  • Brenda,

    You’re missing the point. The $8,000 in the budget is for elections, not recall elections. And just because someone can afford to pay $10 for a loaf of bread doesn’t mean they should. When I moved here the community HOA dues were only $70 and now they’re $82. What’s wrong with having a budget surplus? If more people thought this way maybe our dues would actually go down rather than up.

    This recall clearly was not a scheduled expense and therefore should not be treated as such. I really don’t see how you can argue with this logic but as I said in my previous posting, feel free to kick in one half of one percent of your family’s budget to help cover the cost and you can have as many recalls as you want as long as you and your friends that want them pay for them.

  • First off for Will, it’s nice to have a new voice in the blog, for Tom…my god it’s been over two weeks and your still talking about the same stuff. Except now all you do now is attack everyone’s comments like a bully, and some point that has to get old right!!. Anyways back to Will. You guys really need to get over this $8,000 recall cost. It’s an immaterial amount considering the overall funds this HOA has and what is at stake with this election. Plus it’s all ready going to be spent, so there nothing you can about it at this point. If it’s within the current bylaws and there are funds set aside for it the budget, stop wasting time complaining about. Your right about the board members having a “FIDUCIARY responsibility to us homeowners”, too bad in the real world it doesn’t always happen that way. This current board seems to be aligned all on the same agenda (even breaking board rules their first week in office). There is one minority voice which belongs to the developer too whom the board has already made clear they are not willing to work with and accept as part of the team. I don’t know about you but excluding the one member of the team with the most experience, connections, and resources doesn’t seem like a smart play. A board of intelligent independent thinkers wouldn’t do that.

    For the uncounted vote issue, even though the uncounted ballots had no affect the original outcome of the first election, it’s has to be the responsibility of these neighborhood reps to either show up for these mandatory meetings or have a secondary rep take their place. I mean what’s the point in being a rep if you’re not going to attended important meetings like the official ballot one. Nobody forces people to be reps but if you’re going to be one, accept the responsibility that goes with it.

    And for your conclusion on “I don’t have any ties to the candidates”, unfortunately I’ve heard that before also, and it turned out that person was actually a neighbor of one of the current board members, so that claim carries no weight. I encourage you to go back and read the beginning postings of this blog to better educate yourself on why the recall is actually happening, rather then focusing on the cost and other insignificant items (mentioned primarily by Tom). But I commend you on your post though, it’s a breath of fresh air, from Tom’s monotonous daily postings of the same negativity and immature comments day after day after day.

    • What’s the REAL cost of this recall?

      I just got my ballot, and the postage was $1.22. There are 9031 eligible votes in the HOA.

      Just on postage, that would come out to $11,017.82

      That doesn’t count any administration overhead, the cost of the food for the meet the candidates night, overtime for Walters staff to be at the multiple meetings, or the leasing of meeting space.

      Seems to me that there’s one more set of things that the proponents of this haven’t been fully candid about.

      So, what is the REAL total cost of this recall petition: the meetings, and the elections?

      This doesn’t even take into account the costs to the candidates, or the waste of time for the rest of us that this circus represents.

      And Dub: The juvenile name-calling, astroturfing, and other immaturity has all been on the pro-recall side; as if not being adult enough to respect the results of a duly contested election and thus whining for a do-over immediately after the votes were counted because some people were mean and nasty at some points during the campaign wasn’t childish to begin with.

      • There are 2254 eligible VOTERS in San Elijo Hills. Just because each home gets four votes doesn’t mean you get to multiply by four to artifically inflate the cost of postage. Cost of food and the meeting space for the candidates night are being contributed by the PepperTree Hills cafe.

        And as far a calling this a “waste of time for the rest of us.” you’ve now made over 60 posts here.

        Nice try, though.

      • My correction of postage below notwithstanding, I noted that you only talked about Peppertree donating the space.

        What about all the Walters time and space rent? Never mind the legal fees and election inspectors.

        I doubt this comes in under $8K.

        No matter what it costs, it is still a total waste of time and money, and has created bad blood that will last for years.

    • Hey Dub, does your moniker mean you’re from Dublin, Ireland? If so you’re not the only one.

      One of the reasons 1/2 of my entire generation (I came to Boston in 1984) had to emigrate was the sort of politics this recall represents.

      Let’s not import Gombeenism and the way Charlie Haughey did things to SEH.

      Note to the list: I’m American by choice, a citizen by birth, a US Soldier who served 13 years, and I truly believe what has gone on here is a violation of the underpinnings of a Democratic Republic, which is why I am so forcefully opposed.

  • I pulled my number from the eligible votes tally I got from Walters. Noted that that should be divided by four, which I did not think about. I made a mistake, and own it.

    Once the Rubicon was crossed with the recall petiotion, it has behoved concerned homeowners to be involved. Yes, I think the 60 plus posts I’ve had to make are a waste of time, because if a reasonable process of elections and governance were followed, this mess would never have happened.

    My posts are, unfortunately, necessary, and caused by the recall.

  • BTW: 9031/4 is not 2254, it’s 2258, when rounded, so where do you get your number of voters?

    How do you have access to information that can’t be found on the HOA website?

    Who are you? I post my full name, post yours.

  • Tom, your last post was a joke right!! You can’t be that insecure can you?

    • Chris, this isn’t about insecurity, but transparency. This recall and election is about very serious business, and involves the control of millions of $ of OUR MONEY, and of the only real voice the homeonwers of SEH have in the future of our neighborhood.

      We have people accusing board members of conflicts of interest, nepotism, violation of the bylaws, etc. while hiding their identities. We have what appears to be the same person posting under multiple assumed names.

      If we’re going to have a discussion about things that are this important, it needs to be above board, as opposed to all the scurrying about in the dark that got this whole mess started.

      Put another way: how do you know that every pro-recall post here not tagged Ron or Brenda Clark isn’t by the marketing Dept. of HomeFed?

  • Tom, if you attended the last board meeting you would have seen it’s just not a few people who are upset about the current board election, and your misrepresentation about the postage costs regarding the number of eligible votes is same lack of common sense that you continue to show in your postings, it’s obvious you tend to write things without stopping to think if it really makes sense. You can keep living in the dark and thinking only a few people are behind this recall but I can assure you, your only kidding yourself.

  • Dub, since only those who were in favor had been notified of the meeting on Jan 4th, and it wasn’t even held in San Marcos, never mind San Elijo Hills, of course it was one-sided. Let’s see what transpires on Tuesday.

    I made a mistake, not a misrepresentation, and I owned it, in public, under my own name, after being called out.

    Juxtapose that to yourself and others who won’t even say who you are.

    See you at Peppertree on Tuesday, and at all the board meetings in the future, regardless of who winds up on it.

    Clearly, our community needs to make sure we don’t have foxes guarding the henhouse.

  • >> only those who were in favor had been notified of the meeting on Jan 4th, <<

    OK, now your just being ridiculous. The notification and the agenda of the January 4 meeting was announced on this very site, posted in the forums on the sanelijohills.net community site and sanelijonews.com sites, was emailed by Walters to every opt-in name in the directory, and was posted on the community bulletin board in the towncenter.

    Care to own up to that misrepresentation as well?

  • Yeah, you’re right. Anyone who had nothing better to do over Christmas, while the coup was in play, actually would have known what was going on.

    Normal people were spending time with their families while Ron and his crew skulked around to overturn the election.

    Your post forced me to go all the way back and review the record, which is actually here on this blog:

    Dec 9: Winners announced. Ron and a few others fester about the negativity and Mary Russell in this forum.

    One “Jennifer” advocates a “Do-Over”. No reasons that would validate a recall are advanced. There’s the usual carping the losing side in an election has about negativity, etc.

    Dec 11: Petition signed: no attempt to poll the neighborhoods.

    In the meantime, the rest of us go on with our lives thinking the divisive campaign is behind us, and for better or worse, we have a new board.

    Dec 30th: When most people without an axe to grind have other thigns on therir mind, a notification goes out for a meeitng, in Carlsbad, for the first work-day after the holidays.

    No surprise only the people in favor of this were the majority who showed up.

    What;’s telling is that you, and others, advance as justification for the recall events that happened AFTER the recall petition had already been submitted.

    That’s like blaming Poland for the outbreak of WWII. How intellectually dishonest are you willing to get?

    Let’s see how the next month plays out.

    To me, it’s whether we want a community where we vote, then we govern: or a Banana Republic, with the sort of garbage that is commonplace in New Jersey, Chicago or Boston; or the 2000 West Palm Beach circus; to be validated here in SEH,.

    NO ON THE RECALL.

    DON’T VALIDATE BACKROOM DEALS AND THE TYRANNY OF THE AGGRIEVED MINORITY.

    VOTE AGAINST A PRECEDENT THAT WILL MAKE US UNGOVERNABLE.

  • Tom – If you want to put blame on the date and time of the 1/4/10 meeting, you need not look any further than your current HOA board. They decided the date and time, even after they insisted in their campaign that they would make all meetings convenient. The reason it was held in Carlsbad, is due to the short notice and the holidays, that was the only place available. I find it very interesting that you have not attended HOA meetings, not volunteered to be a neighborhood rep or not even bother to run for the board. All you seem to do is complain about one thing or the other. I have a neighbor who is an excellent realtor. I can give her your name if you are so unhappy with SEH. Or maybe, you are just the type who sees the negative in everything.

    • I like San Elijo Hills, and bought into the vision when I bought here. It’s to have the vision fulfilled that I supported the SEH4, and am totally opposed to the way this recall came about.

      This recall is the sort of thing you expect in Oceanside, not SEH.

  • I love coming into the blog everyday for a quick morning laugh by reading Tom’s latest post. He must get a text notification on his phone whenever someone posts something, either that or he has this blog minimized on his computer all day at work at refreshes it every 5 minutes. Without him this blog would be rather boring. With him, it’s a great source of daily comedy. Although I can’t figure out if he’s for or against the recall!!!

    • Bree – I completely agree. I can’t wait to see his comments after tonights meeting!

    • Sorry I can’t oblige weith commentary on tonight, as I have some mroe research to do based on the various candidates answers to questions, but I’m glad I’m helping the site get more pageviews.

      You should have been at the meeting if you wanted to know what went on, and if you were, how about providing some real content, as opposed to ad-hominem sniping.

      The video will supposedly be up on the actual HOA site (www.sanelijohills.net) in a few days. Apparently Walters has decided that facilitating more open and accessible communication is a good thing, which is a good thing IMO.

  • Well one thing is clear after last night, the dude Jeff Tuller is smooth cat ain’t he. I thought it was amusing that every question that was asked his first response was always “well I previously touched on that in my bio”. Am I the only one that thinks this guy is a snake. I mean he’s spent thousands and thousands of his own money on mailers and postage trying to win a seat on this board. To me that reeks of PERSONAL AGENDA!!!!

    • Wow, can’t you just end the personal attacks? I didn’t notice you speaking, or at least not identifying yourself.

      What’s slimier, a bunch of people making personal accusations based on innuendo and circumstantial evidence, without saying their names; or a guy who is being professional and smooth?

      He’s the CEO of http://www.savvierfitness.com/ which would require that he be smooth. It also means that the expense for the election is probably a drop in the bucket to him, and he really is motivated by what he said: to improve the community.

      Sarah Vollrath has sent out a much more expensive, full color, mailer, and while she answered every question, despite taking a lot of time, there wasn’t much actual substance to the answers. Are you questioning her motives too?

      I’ll take a smooth, well spoken, CEO on the HOA board over any of the frothing hurlers on the ditch who are attacking him.

      To me, Jeff Tuller came off presidential, which is good, since he is the President of our HOA board.

  • I’m actually ok with having Jeff still on the board, without question he has personal agenda, nobody would argue that but he does have some good points, when he actually chooses to answer the question that he’s ask. The problems lie in him having his puppets on the board with him. To me Michael Young seems like a “Yes-man” to Jeff and portrays a lot of bitterness, that was evident in the January 4 meeting as well as on occasion last night. Mary Russell…..she wanted no part of that meeting last night, of course see had a “family obligation” she couldn’t get out of. Tom C. seems like a pretty stand-up guy, and I don’t really have a problem with him so in the end if 2 of the SE4, two independents and the developer made up the board, I think the recall would be an overwhelming success. I sure Tom (who I found last night to be extremely disrespectful to Jean Salvia and a few homeonwers who were asking questions, but typical from what I’ve read from him) will add his two cents to this response within 10 minutes of this posting.

    • Jean was violating her own rules: the meeting was about the homeowners asking questions of the candidates, not for her to, as she did, take up 25 minutes, or nearly 1/4, of the time.

      This is OUR association, not Walters.

      • Jean was the facilitator last night, if you didn’t notice. It was her job to keep things organized and on track which means often deciding if someone is making a statement or asking a question. Please open your eyes a little, you come accross as being a very unhappy individual and it can’t be all about the election recall. Even your buddy-buddy Jeff Tuller is in support of the recall.

      • The only time I addressed Jean was when she was having a direct conversation with the person in the shadows by the side door, who did not identify themselves, and wasnt’ actually asking a question, but rather making statements, essentially stating her position, and not bringing the item to a question to the board. After I interjected, she did, and Stephen Kirkland gave a very good rundown of the issues involved.

        I moderate panels as part of my job. The job of a moderator is to moderate, not speak. The best moderators are invisible.

        Jean was being a spokesperson last night, and that is totally inappropriate, so I called her out on it.

    • I am not okay with Jeff remaining on the board. He could not answer any question directly. He would make a good politician, never a direct answer, but lots of verbage. As for him having an agenda, it is very obvious. He does not like the tree policy, and as a member of the Tree committee, he threatened to sue a number of times. I say that as I know people on that committee and said he was not very easy to deal with. HOA boards, SHOULD NOT have a personal agenda, but rather put the ENTIRE communities interest first.

      After last night’s Q&A, they are much stronger candidates to chose from.

  • The expense is a “drop in the bucket’ to Tuller? Between the first election and so far during this one, I would guess he’s spent well over $7500 on his self-serving campaign to “improve the community.” So you’re saying that people should be able to buy their seat on the board?

    • Whether you like it or not, money matters in politics.

      What about Sarah Vollrath? Her recent flier can’t have been cheap.

      Tim Minjares already has a mouthpiece, which receives significant revenue from vested interests.

      If Jeff has the money, and he wants to spend it on something he’s committed to, what’s your beef with him doing so?

      People don’t always spending money in the hope of getting money on the back end.

      Frankly, I think people who run for office using their own wealth are much less likely to be doing it with a hidden agenda than those who need others to foot the bill. there’s less chance of a quid pro quo.

      • Tom – Tim M. is co-owner of the fountain but he HAS NOT used that as a personal forum. Plese do not imply that he has! Have you read one item in The Fountain, with his byline? No. The article regarding the recall in this month’s Fountain was well written in an objective fashion and not a mouthpiece for Tim.

        After last night, I would hope you would keep an open mind, as there were some very strong candidates answering questions.

      • Mary, I was pointing out that Jeff wasn’t the only one using his money to advance his candidacy, nothing more.

  • Your last comment makes ZERO sense. Using your own wealth to buy a position, that smell like an agenda to me.

    As for Sarah she’s a realtor, so putting out the flier is a form of advertising for her business as well as running for the board so it’s not a “drop in the bucket” for her as you call it.

    • Anyone who runs for office has an agenda. The SEH4 were very clear about what theirs was/is: Improved financial supervision of the vendors, better landscaping with a particular attention to fire defense, and better communication with homeowners.

      It’s OK that you disagree with the agenda, but saying it’s wrong for Jeff to have and agenda is really silly.

      It’s having an HIDDEN agenda, or undisclosed conflicts that is the problem.

      The prior board, which Sarah was part of, was in breach of the LAW, never mind the ByLaws, regarding timely posting of minutes. By law, they are to be posted within 30 days, and if the minutes aren’t ratified, then the drafts are to be posted. We still don’t have minutes from any meeting more recent than August 25th, although ratifying those is on the agenda for Thursday

      At least now we have some communication from the board, as opposed to the sneering condescension we got from the HomeFed dominated one, and the stonewalling we used to get from Walters until the new board was elected.

      In general, I actually agree with your assessment of the presentations of the current board at the meeting. If the election were to be held again, under different circumstances, there are two of the new candidates I would choose over Michael Young and Mary Russell, who seems to be unable to take the time necessary.

      However, I still don’t think anything the current board have done warrants a recall, and that the whole way it has happened, the character assassination, total lack of transparency and consultation with the neighborhoods, and cowardice by the proponents; and most especially the very dangerous precedent of bad governance it sets, warrant rejection of the recall on principle.

      I was about to give kudos for posting under your real name, but unfortunately, I was unable to find a Chris Ray in the HOA directory, which I am assured by Walters is current.

      At least you’re talking about the issues, and not libeling people.

      • The SEH Directory hs never purported to be a comprehensive list of everyone in the community. Only residents who CHOOSE to display their names and addresses can be found there. For privacy reasons, there’s a box you can check on your profile page to determine whether or not someone wants their information to appear.

        Another unsubstantiated attack, courtesy of Tom Byrnes.

    • What was the attack, or unsubstantiated? I presented a fact: I was unable to find the name in the directory. I made no commentary other than that meant I didn’t feel kudos were warranted.

      I did express appreciation that “Chris Ray” was speaking to the issues.

      That I didn’t l give kudos is taken as an attack is rich. Given that insult, disparagement, defamation, and probably libel is what the current board, and anyone opposed to the recall, has been subjected to.

      I know, us outsiders from the cozy club that has run this place since the beginning have to be “respectful”, collegial, and basically kiss the ground and the things close to it of the former board, HomeFed, Walters and their supporters, no matter what they do or say.

  • The attack was the implication that Chris Ray may be a made-up name because you can’t find him in the directory, now supported by the fact that you put his name in quotes. Everybody here sees right through you and your antics.

    • Oh Morgan, you’re so right. I am such an evildoer.

      I see now that I have been blinded by the evil Jeff Tuller and his minions, and that Gert SpielVogel, Thom Smolders, Concerned Homeowner, To, and all the other wonderful people who say Jeff is a vampire out to suck the blood of the lovely HomeFed and Walters people, and turn San Elijo into a Ghouls and Goblins Youtube video are true people who know what lurks in the heart of men.

      Please forgive me for my transgressions of ever possibly insinuating that any of these people, whose names are not in the directory or the phone book, are anything but real and that their motives in recalling a board before it ever had a meeting, on the basis of who the president’s neighbor is, and that they deigned to say that maybe we could have more transparency and value for money, would be good.

      I now see that I should just hand over my money, and take whatever crumbs of information, and services, the Knights of HomedFed, and Duchess of Morgan’s Corner and her page dole out through their Minister, Walters.

      Please forgive me, that I may be invited to your midnight gatherings, and learn the secret handshake, that I might too have total recall.

      (Hope those who tune in for the comedy liked that one.)

      • Geez Tom – do you have to have a snarky answer to everything? If someone makes a comment, sometimes it is better just to let it go. People like to bait you and you rise to the occasion. Sometimes, a sign of maturity (and critical thinking) is to best leave things be.

      • Hey Mike, do you ever consider that I find baiting the frothing moonbats entertaining too?

        I know, never wrestle with a pig.

  • Tom – now look who is using the ad homien attacks!

    • I was making fun of myself: As in I was engaging in the act of pig wrestling. Not with you, with the frothing at the mouth “Tuller is evil” crowd.

  • Overall I think the recall was successful one. Although I think Jeff Tuller in the end will probably get voted to stay on the board, (mainly due to his politician and deflection skills). The good is if Stephen Kirkland gets voted on, he can sort of be the watchdog on Jeff to make sure he doesn’t go off trying to do his own thing and is playing nice with the developer and rest of the board members.

    Mary Russell obviously wanted no part of the “meet the candidate’s night” (not surprising) and Michael Young just seems to want a few trees cut down in his neighborhood and be Jeff’s right hand man. Even the (blog-only) bully Tom Byrnes agreed he probably wouldn’t vote for Young or Russell, so it appears the recall, even though some people don’t like how it was started, is going to be a successful one. I would leave my real name but if fear of Tom running a background check and credit report on me, I’ll choose to remain anonymous.

    • Val, the candidates forum was not the recall. There is still an election to be had, and no on the recall is on the ballot. My guess is that most of the attendees @ the candidate forum were people who are in favor of the recall, and want to know who to vote for, but I may be wrong.

      You have completely misquoted me regarding Michael Young and Mary Russell: I said that, if the original election were held today, with some of the new candidates on offer, I would have chosen two of the new candidates over them. The candidates I would have chosen were not running in the original election, so, at the time that the properly conducted, real, election, which there are no good grounds to overturn, happened, I would have voted exactly as I did. That’s not a reflection on either of them, but rather that I think that Stephen Kirkland and Adam Riffe are both exceptional.

      As far as “bullying”, if what I do here is bullying, then I guess you would describe what has been said here to me, and about the current board as murder.

      I’m glad that you don’t think that calling Jean out for having a conversation with the guy in the shadows when she should have asked him “is there a question there” and directed it to the candidates, was “Bullying”. I don’t see how that’s any different from what I do here, which is just trying to keep people honest.

      As far as “credit check” and “background check”, what absurd hypberbole. Only after it became really obvious that fake names were being used did I start to check to see if the names being posted actually were in the HOA, or even in the Zip code. My tools are the HOA website and Google.

      Sorry you aren’t willing to post your real name, but I get the sense from your post that you are, in fact, a real person, and not one of the many aliases for one or two individuals.

      Too bad you didn’t go to the HOA meeting tonight, I think it might have opened your eyes some.

  • Tom,

    In some people’s opinion: the reps were not notified in a timely fashion and appropriately to be able to fulfill the expectations of the vote.

    Re: Time – With the “time” the board has had, in my opinion, they have shown in multiple ways that they are arrogant, exclusive, dishonest, not educated on the CCR’s and not open until recently to take feedback from Hale and Jean. This is unfortunate because I actually voted for 1 of the famous 4. Whether you or others believe they have not made any mistakes, there are quite a few residents who will disagree. I am glad we have this opportunity for the recall, because this has given us the chance to see what the true colors may be from the new board and it may be in the current boards best interest minus Hale and Jean to make a statement that shows that they have learned from their mistakes in the past few months, recognize the value and necessity of Jean and Hale, since being on the board and that hopefully it has taught this new board some humility. Life is about learning life lessons and when we stop learning, then what is it all about anymore?

    You state that “spending $8K that didn’t need to be spent, upending a duly conducted election, exacerbating the negativity and division of the prior election, and setting a precedent that a small group, in private, without polling the neighborhoods, can override the will of the voters, doesn’t seem to fit the bill for that.”

    It is interesting that you state “exacerbating the negativity and division of the prior election.” I feel that you are currently perpetuating this very thing. You state, “setting a precedent that a small group, in private, without polling the neighborhoods, can override the will of the voters.” “This small group” you refer to, appears not to be so small, if others on this site are interested, more residents are attending the meetings now, and the reps were spoken to and they signed the petition. How do you know that the reps did not speak to the neighborhoods? I do not know if they have or have not…. Maybe they spoke to enough of their neighbors to feel comfortable signing the petition? Maybe they are just as frustrated as a rep with the election process too?

    To me, it appears that all the reps did was sign a petition putting the recall to a ballot. So why do you say that a “small group” is overriding the will of the voters? Doesn’t it have to be the voters themselves who will determine whether or not the recall actually passes?

    Can you help me understand: Why do you feel compelled to take simple statements we all make and respond with such hostile comments? This has been your style of communication in over 100 posts on this site. You bring up valid points to the subject. Information to think about. You brought up excellent thought provoking questions for the candidates.

    However in my opinion, when you start insulting people, putting them down with such anger or attack, make gross assumptions and write those assumptions as it is fact; this is only hurting your credibility.

    Your message is getting lost because it appears that you are so focused on “the fight” with another person and making them wrong at any cost who comments against you or comments on the site period about the subject. You know the saying… “You get more bees with honey than vinegar.”

    Your true message re: the vote, candidates and recall is getting lost. Come on Tom, you are smarter and better than this. So I encourage you and challenge you to step it up notch and debate with respect and honor. The people who support this recall support it because they truly feel it is the right thing to do. You don’t have to agree with them, but you should at least respect them. So please, show everyone who is just as passionate about the subject as you are that you are “Not that guy.

    • Jennifer,

      the insult, and frankly the libel (claiming that there is a hidden agenda to engage in Nepotism by giving the landscape contract to a neighbor, or that the only reason the board ran is to cut down trees that are blocking their view), here has been on the pro-recall side.

      That I have responded to it may be seen as prolonging the negativity, but the proponents of the recall have been doing just fine in engaging in character assassination, calling Jeff “slimy” and the new board “shady”; before any posting by me in this, and every new article posted on this subject. As an example, see the comments about the Meet the Candidates night.

      I do not respect how this has come about, or the way in which 10 people, who did not poll their communities, abused the power of their office by launching a preemptive strike against the new board, giving reasons that under any reasonable standard do not merit a recall election, before they did anything, especially with some of them giving the excuse that they didn’t know what the obligations of that office were, and therefore failed to properly discharge them the first time.

      It is precisely because I believe those behind the recall, and that their supporters who libel the current board, and insult their supporters, under cover of anonymity here, have acted, and continue to act, dishonorably, that I am so exercised about it.

      The petitioners DID overturn the election. We now have to vote NO on the recall to keep the results of a duly conducted election.

      This is the sort of dirty politics you expect in Boston, New York/New Jersey, Chicago and Oceanside. San Elijo Hills should be better than this.

      The only way to BE better than this, and stop a precedent that will make this sort of mess more likely in the future, is to vote NO on the recall.

      Otherwise we may as well rename ourselves “Broward County West”.

    • Jennifer, you do know that Jean is not on the board?

      I know she acts like she is the chairperson of the meetings, but, in fact, when she does that, she is out of order. The chair is the President of the HOA.

      Jean is not a member of the board, a statutory officer, or anything more than a vendor, as far as her official responsibilities go.

      One of the things I hope will happen in the future, regardless of how the election goes, is that the Rules of Order are better enforced in our meetings. This means that only the chair (the HOA president) recognizes speakers, and only the chair and the secretary of the meeting may interrupt a speaker.

  • Nice try Jennifer but unfortunately Tom is as stubborn as a bull. He gets a kick out of using big words and showing off his philosophy skills any chance he gets. The sad thing is that he would rather vote “no” on the recall just to make a point, then actually vote for 4 “independent” qualified homeowners to fill the seats. He has already gone on record and said he would have voted differently if he knew back then what he knows now. I’m just hoping his vote “no” on the recall is just lip service and secretly he’s going to vote for the four best candidates because in the end we all want the same thing, and that’s what’s best for the community. Hopefully we all learned a lesson in the recall process that we all need to be more involved/educated in the direction the community is going even though we are all consumed with our daily personal lives. It’s been a good wake-up for all of us, since now the HOA will begin to be in the hands of the homeowners…………… who may or may not have the experience and the insight that the developer had when they occupied the most seats.

    • For stubborn, substitute principled. I don’t believe in the “living Constitution”, relative morality, “outcomes based education”, grading on a curve, or the rest of the waffling absence of standards advanced by lefties either.

      We have elections, we vote, unless someone engages in gross malfeasance, we don’t throw them out until the next election. For that reason, I was also opposed to the impeachment of Bil Clinton.

      You are completely MISQUOTING me about the prior election and how I would vote if it were reheld.

      If some of the candidates who are running now were running in the last election I would have voted for them as opposed to two of the current board.

      – The two candidates I would have voted for (Adam Riffe and Stephen Kirkland) WEREN’T running
      – The election was duly conducted
      – The current board had had no time to do anything to merit a recall.
      -The reasons offered for the recall do not rise to the level of impeachability or anything to invalidate an election

      and so I am voting NO.

      What part of this is about following proper governance, not setting a dangerous precedent, and not validating backroom deals, machine politics, and dignifying character assassination, especially under cover of anonymity, do you not understand?

      And as far as “getting involved” I am now the Alternate Rep for Woodley’s, and will be running for Rep in the next election. What have you done to follow your own advice?

      • Unless you vote for the same four candidates who ran in the first election, your “No” vote is just typical Tom Byrnes bull. You want it both ways, and we all see through you.

        And as far as your comment that “The petitioners DID overturn the election,” you really do love to twist words. As Jennifer said, the only way the election actually gets overturned is if the VOTERS choose to overturn it. The petitioners have a total of 10 votes, that’s all.

      • Man up Anonymous Coward.

        You won’t even say your own name, so you don’t even have the courage to speak for yourself, never mind the “We All” you claim to be a mouthpiece for.

        What right do you have to speak for anyone, even yourself, under cover of anonymity?

        It’s my business how I vote. I’ve made it clear I’m opposed to the recall, and will be voting NO.

        I don’t want the recall to succeed. How is that “wanting it both ways”?

    • I don’t engage in “Lip service”. I say what I mean, and do what I say. Soldiers are funny that way.

  • All candidates were acceptable and I appreciate their willingness to contribute to the future of our community! I’m voting Jeff Tuller, Torin Snyder, Tim Minjares & Steve Kirkland!!! (with Hale) I believe they all have the most strengths needed to guide this community forward! Hope others will join me in supporting these candidates!

  • Lori, while I don’t have an issue with the character of any of the candidates (they are all exceptional in their own way), I think that TIm Minjares should not be running for the board because of his ownership of “The Fountain”.

    It is a generally observed rule of our Democracy that you can’t be both a newspaperman and a politician. In fact, it’s explicitly prohibited under the code of ethics of the NY Times, which forms a model for the code of ethics of newspapers nationwide:

    http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html

    Section 89.

    The conflicts of interest inherent in the job of fairly reporting the news and not alienating your advertisers are bad enough. Adding running for, and holding, elective office in the community you report on adds just too much additional conflict.

    Imagine if the editor of the NY Times was running for Senator or President? It’s the same issue, but on a smaller scale, here.

    Tim is a nice guy, and his paper does great things for the community. In order to be able to report with any credibility on the actions of the board, which if nothing else, this whole episode shows needs more doing, and which is “The Fountain”‘s rightful role, Tim should not be on the board.

    I’ve got nothing against Torin, but I do think that Adm Riffe has much more background and experience on boards, with much larger P&L responsibility.

    The board needs someone with a finance background, and if the only other businessman on the board is Jeff, there needs to be a counterbalance (which I think Tom Capellazo’s common sense approach provides in the current board).

    I intend on posting my consolidated thoughts in the thread on the meet the candidates video, once I get them straight myself.

    So far, the only thing I’m certain of is that I am opposed to the recall on basic ground of principle, which I have belabored above.

  • Tom, while I agree that most all of the candidates have good qualities to contribute to the board, Steven Kirkland obviously has a conflict of interest since his law firm represents HOA’s, one of which is Walter’s Management.

    Also, I don’t want board represenatation by candidates who have only lived in the community for several months, regardless of their previous board experience.

    I’m also voting “No” on the recall. But if it goes through, I’m voting for Jeff Tuller, Michael Young, Tom Capellazo and Torin Snyder.

    • I share your concerns about Stephen, and actually talked to him in person about them after the meeting.

      Since he was the ONLY candidate who gave the correct answer regarding the proper roles and responsibilities, and limitations of the authority, of the board, I’m inclined to feel the benefit of having him on the board, if the recall succeeds, would outweigh any potential conflict, especially since we really do need to get our ByLaws amended to make sure that any future recall has much more homeowner input, and to make sure all votes are counted independent of the failures of actions of any individual reps.

      Since his firm represents so many HOAs and vendors, it’s kind of like saying any one of our local congressmen has a conflict of interest because one company is in their district, when dealing with another company also in their district.

      I still haven’t made up my mind on my contingent vote. If Stephen were to make a promise not to represent Walters, Homefed, or any other HOA managed by Walters or built by Homefed, as long as he was on the board; and his firm were to agree not to solicit any business from the SEH HOA for his term plus two years, I’d be much more comfortable.

      I do tend to agree with you that Mary needs to be replaced if the recall succeeds, as she clearly can’t decide if she wants the job or not.

      It’s a pretty mess the petitioners have got us all into.

      If they are right, and Tuller at al are as disingenuous as they claim, they could have waited for them to do something worthy of a recall, and then the whole community would have been behind it.

      However, we have to work with the hand we’re dealt. I’m definitely voting NO on the recall, because there is no good reason to recall the board, and we need to put a stop to this power play.

      I don’t know exactly how I’m placing my contingent vote, but I do know I will definitely include Tuller in my vote. He has handled himself well, with a minor misstep, under very difficult circumstances, and is clearly a great executive.

      I’m inclined to also vote for Tom Capellazzo, as he provides a connection to the “old ones” from the Wal-Mart days on the homeowner side, we need someone who understands plants, and he has prior HOA board experience.

      Trying to do the right thing, in terrain where we don’t really have a map.

    • You do realize that you cannot vote twice. If you vote No on the recall, that is it. If you vote yes, that is when you can vote for other candidates. There will not be another voting process after the no’s are counted. Be sure to read everything carefully.

      • You are completely incorrect Sue. As with the recall of Gov. Davis, the vote on the recall and the vote for the board are independent.

        So, just as Democrats were advised to vote NO on the recall, but to also vote for Craig Bustamante, I am advocating NO on the recall, and to also vote for Jeff Tuller.

        The one difference between our process and the statewide one is that OUR incumbents can still run if recalled, a governor cannot.

        If, after this whole mess is over, we succeed in tightening the requirements for putting a recall on the ballot to 5% of homeowners, as opposed to one or two neighborhood reps, I think also saying the incumbents being recalled can’t be on the “if recalled” ballot would be in order.

        However, that is not the case now. You can vote NO on the recall, and if the recall passes, your vote will still be counted for the new board.

        Anything else would disenfranchise those who like one or more of the board, but agree with the reasons for the recall.

      • Err spell check is apparently, anti-Hispanic. it’s CRUZ Bustamante. I missed the auto-correct.

    • Emerging from lurkdom to ask Katie: if you would rather have Torin Snyder on the board than Mary Russell, as you seem to indicate, why not simply vote FOR the recall, allowing you to have a better chance of having your four preferred candidates on the board?

      At the end of the day, no matter how one feels about the recall, isn’t having the best people on the board the most important thing? Particularly since the people we elect will be making decisions that affect our lives for the next three years, long after this recall is forgotten?

      • Ron, if you believe there is no such thing as a fundamental set of principles by which we are governed, then “at the end of the day” the ends always justify the means.

        The problem with that is, at the end of the day, when we don’t respect a basic set of rules in our society, we get chaos.

        I know it’s hard for aging hippies like you to accept: but the end result of the tearing down of standards and everything that made this country great by your generation is the mess we find ourselves in now.

        SO, at the end of the day, order must trump chaos.

        NO on the recall is about order over chaos, a republic over mob rule, and about transparency and good governance.

      • Re “long forgotten”. I think you grossly underestimate how long the wounds you opened with this will persist. You have forced neighbors to choose to actively REJECT other neighbors, as opposed to merely vote FOR who they wanted, as was the case in the prior election.

        If the board had been in office for a while, and been malfeasant, then perhaps this would have been a singularity.

        Given how it went down, right after the election, with no polling of the neighborhoods, and with allegations of what MIGHT be the “secret agenda”, but no actual actions prior to the petition, the wounds this has opened will likely fester as long, and as nastily, as the 2000 Florida fracas.

        No mater how the election goes, you have a lot to answer for. If the recall fails, and especially if Morgan’s Corner votes NO, you should resign all your offices, IMO.

      • I think that’s fair. Now let’s see if you’re willing to walk the talk. If the recall passes, and especially if Woodley’s Glen votes YES, you immediately resign your new position as their alternate neighborhood rep. Because it will be clear that you’re not qualified to represent anyone except yourself and the voices in your head.

      • If Woodley’s votes for the recall, I’ll consider resigning. However, I’m merely an alternate. I intend to actually run next time, and I’ve been clear about my position, so my neighbors will vote for or against me with full knowledge of my opinion.

      • WRT my resigning, if Woodley’s votes for the recall: I’ve given it some thought:

        It’s a lot different me being an Alternate rep, whose sole real role is to make sure that the votes get counted or other duties get done in case of the Reps incapacity or absence; and being the actual Rep, especially being the one who initiated this whole petition.

        Unless Woodleys has another alternate, my resigning would just leave my neighbors at risk of being disenfranchised in the future. It’s to make sure that didn’t happen that I stepped forward in the first place.

        SO, if Woodley’s votes for the recall, unless Gary can find another alternate, I’ll stick around until the next election, and then run for Rep. If Woodley’s votes for the recall, and Gary finds another person to be the alternate , I’ll resign. If I don’t win as rep in the next election, then I won’t stay on as alternate.

        The only campaigning I’m doing in Woodleys at the moment is to get people to VOTE. I just want my neighborhood’s voice to be heard.

        My anti-recall missives are all here.

        Regardless, I intend to be at every HOA board meeting from here on, and to do what I can to make San Elijo the best it can be.

  • To Tom Byrnes,

    Respectfully, I would like to correct you on Tom Campellazzo. He was not involved in the historic Wal-Mart fight to my knowledge and I was VERY involved in it so I should know. Jeff Tuller did help and was involved towards the end of the campaign. While I liked Tom as a candidate and feel he would be “okay” if elected, I didn’t feel he was as strong voiced as the others. He seemed a little too laid back for my tastes. I’m concerned he would be more of a follower than a leader. Torin has served on the Arc Committee and I have seen his participation in other areas of our community over the years. I initially had concerns about Tim’s conflict of interest with owning The Fountain but feel his experience and network of connections would help our community in moving forward more than it would hurt it. I’m not worried about the conflict of interest so much. This is only an HOA and not a presidential seat. I really was impressed the most by Stephen Kirkland in his knowledge of HOA law and that he would bring some freshness to the board being that he is a newcomer to SEH. He’s definitely getting my vote. I do not feel that he is in cahoots with Walters at all.

    I liked Adam Riffe too but he just didn’t impress me the most to make my top 4. We obviously had a good variety of qualified candidates to choose from and for that we are truly blessed. I spent a lot of time in my considerations of all and these were the 4 I felt were strongest for this transitional board.

    Respectfully,
    Lori

    • Lori, since I wasn’t here ( I lived in Encinitas at the time), I respect your input on the Wal-Mart campaign, which seems to have been the first defining moment of this community. I think this will be the second. It’s too bad that it is as divisive as the Wal-Mart fight was unifying.

      I am very impressed with Stephen Kirkland, and think his expertise is sorely needed in the first order of business any board must address: the fundamental deficiencies in our governance that have led to this recall. Hopefully, when the recall fails, he can chair the committee to reform our ByLaws.

      Tim has to make a choice: is he a journalist or a politician? If he wants to be a politician, he needs to divest himself of “The Fountain”. If he wants to be a newsman, he needs to be apolitical. Otherwise, he will die, like Bob Nanninga, unsuccessful in either sphere.

      It’s a very clear line in our country: If you are of the Fourth Estate, you cannot server in the first three.

      • I realize that the whole reference to Bob in that last post may be misinterpreted: Bob was a great writer. Although our politics were opposite, I enjoyed reading “Observations from the Edge”, and thought it had real potential as a nationally syndicated column. However, Bob’s perennial green party candidacy, as well as his position on the parks and rec committee, precluded any large circulaiton paper from picking him up, due to the ethics conflict.
        The Coast newsgroup has been moderately successful, as has “The Fountain” with its expansion.
        IMO, the future of news is the highly local paper. I think Tim and Karen can take the whole “Fountain” concept nationwide. I think if Tim gets into politics, with the board seat being a first step, that would harm his business. I also think that having him on the board would harm “The Fountain”‘s ability to do some great reporting on what is going on with the HOA, and we need more reporting on the HOA going forward.

  • Would all of you quite answering Tom’s posts. He gets a kick from it. I love how he answers multiple times on the same post. Please let him just agrue with himself. Frankly, I’m tired of hearing (or reading him) day after day.

    • Hey Sue, you don’t have to read me. You can continue in your “We hate Jeff Tuller” Echo chamber simply by skipping over my posts.

      That won’t change the outcome of the election, but it will let you think you and yours are representative of the community, which voted over 80% for Tuller in the last election.

      3 weeks, and counting.

      • The community voted over 80% for Tuller? Really?

        Less than 20% of the entire community voted at all. So, that means 80% of 20% voted for Tuller, meaning only about 15% of the community actually voted for him. Aren’t you tired of being wrong all the time yet?

      • The people who VOTED are the only ones who count.

        As with the rest of our politics, there’s a big difference between eligible, registered (not a factor in SEH), and registered voters who vote.

        What part of, unless there’s MALFEASANCE, you don’t overturn a duly conducted election don’t you understand?

        If we overturned every election in which the winner was elected by only a minority of the eligible voters, no elective office in this country would ever by filled.

        Aren’t you tired of twisting the facts yet?

      • I’ll jump in on this one, just for fun. 432 people out of 2254 (or 2258) eligible voters voted in the first election. That’s 19.2% of the community. Now let’s say Jeff Tuller did indeed get 80% of the vote. 80% of 432 is approximately 346 votes. 346 votes from 2254 eligible voters is 15.3% of the community. You can twist this any way you want, but under no stretch of the imagination can you say that over 80% of the community voted for Jeff Tuller. Well, I take that back. You can SAY it – because you’ve never been one to let little things like FACTS get in the way of your arguments — but it would not be true.

      • The current board was elected by 80% of the voters, in the same way as the president was elected by 52.9% of the voters.

        If you start using “eligible” as opposed to “ballots cast” when saying who votes how, then the winners of every election look pretty bad.

        19% is a pretty good statistical sample in a population. What makes you think that the 19% who voted weren’t pretty representative of the community?

        There’s a better chance that they were than the 50 raging Tuller-haters that showed up on Jan 4th, or than those who post here (to include myself).

        I hold with the basic principle that elections are sacrosanct, and losers don’t get a do-over, unless they can prove the election was fraudulent, or there is serious malfeasance in office.

  • I only agree with Tom 15% of the time, but you have to admit he is intelligent and healthy for the process most of the time. It’s nice to see that people care and are willing to get involved. I would also say this of Tuller who I do not support.

    Tom keep playing nice and easy on the insults.

  • How do we even know that all the “Tom Byrnes” posts are all from the same individual. No hard working person I know has enough free time to post on San Elijo Blogs all day like this guy. No way can it be the work of one person, it like a 3-ring circus. You have your politician, your philosopher and your history buff. Whoever these people are, there very funny, very naive also, but I’m beginning to think they mean to come accross that way. It fuels the anomosity

    • I am a single individual, I just happen to be a Renaissance man, and I type fast.

      I also care about this issue, and no-one who knows me would describe me as naive.

      You mistake objection to the recall and my position that the reasons offered don’t’ rise to the standard required, and the timing is highly suspect; for believing Jeff Tuller to be a saint.

      One thing no-one seems to have made much of is that Ron got agreement from the developer not to run any of their employees. How come no-one has wondered what the quid pro quo for that was, or balked at the backroom dealing that it surely took to get that commitment?

      • Do you really look for conspiracy theories everywhere? The request was simple: I told HomeFed that a petition was going to be circulated that might result in a re-election (if the recall were to pass). I said that one of the divisive issues in the first election was the whole “homeowner versus developer” campaign point, and that it would be better for the community if a potential re-election could be exclusively about homeowners campaigning on their own platforms and qualifications. Meaning no developer on the ballot. They agreed, no questions asked, no quid pro quo.

        However, if you think there was some backroom deal cut, why don’t you come out and tell us what you think it was, and who benefited?

      • Considering the allegations of planning on handing the management contract to his neighbor without open bids, and other plans of subterfuge leveled at Jeff Tuller, by you and others, it’s a bit rich to say I’m seeing conspiracy theories.

        You just admitted you had a private conversation with the developer, before the petition was circulated, where they agreed not to run candidates. How is that anything OTHER than a back room deal? Even if they did it because they liked your music, it’s a deal, in private, with the developer, that led to your overturning, before they had their first meeting, the election of a duly elected board.

        I don’t know, and am not about to guess, what was promised them.

        That they were consulted before you circulated the petition, but the neighborhood reps didn’t bother to poll their neighborhoods before signing it, simply confirms my general disgust with how the whole recall came about.

      • AS for who stood to benefit: HomeFed and Walters, by at least getting a crack at breaking a voting bloc on the board that had run on holding them to account.

      • You say “You just admitted you had a private conversation with the developer” as if that’s news. There’s never been any question that I asked HomeFed not to run, and the neighborhood reps — ALL of them — were fully aware of that before making their decision whether to sign the petition.

        Here is a line from an email that all neighborhood reps were sent prior to the petition being circulated:
        _ _ _ _ _ _ _

        Additionally, I have asked HomeFed Corporation to guarantee that no developers will run in a new election, ensuring a homeowner majority on the Board. HomeFed has agreed. With the developer not running, this can truly be an election about candidates and their qualifications — as it should be — not the “homeowner versus developer” battle we just experienced.
        _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

        This has generally been considered to be a GOOD thing, and even Jeff Tuller’s letter of January 22 lauds HomeFed’s decision, saying “But the fact is that the developer has done a positive gesture to the community by agreeing not to run candidates, and I believe that those signing the petition did so with the best interests at heart for our community.”

      • How about you post the WHOLE e-mail, instead of abstracts, as you have been asked to do since this whole thing started?

        I never said the neighborhood reps didn’t know about the deal, I said they never asked their communities.

        My beef is that HomeFed had more say in whether the petition was singed, and advance notice of its circulation, than the OWNERS OF THE COMMUNITY, or the DULY ELECTED BOARD.

        What part of: you engaged in private horse-trading with OUR VOTES and that makes me VERY ANGRY don’t you get?

    • Lukas is right!
      or
      Tom Byrnes got NO life sitting on this blog all day all night, bickering and moaning with every comment and post.

      • The poster who is most consistently anti everything here, even including something as good for the community as a “minute clinic” in Albertsons, is you: “concerned local”.

        I’ve got a very good life, which is why I was happy to simply vote in the actual election and get on with my life, until you and your activist curmudgeon friends decided to turn San Elijo Hills into Broward County, circa 2000.

        I also can type quickly, and blog here while I have compile jobs and long-run database queries running in other windows.

        Feel free to run lexical analysis on my prose to determine if I am one, or a Trinity. I suggest the following tools:

        Gender Genie:

        http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php

        Sentence length and punctuation analysis.

        And word entropy.

        An example of how to do this is here:

        http://www.hackerfactor.com/papers/who_is_n3td3v.pdf

  • I’m sure even Tom would agree with that……..Also with the developer agreeing not to run anymore of their employees in the recall election should simply tell you, they probably had nothing to do with it. If they were behind the recall they would have wanted to give their employees another chance to win so they could control the board.

    • No who’s being naive, Lukas?

      Homefed could read the tea-leaves, and if they couldn’t Ron spelled it out for them by telling them that their candidates were “divisive” (when in fact, they were unifying, in unifying the voters behind the SEH4, so that our vote wouldn’t get split while the developer machine got their candidates elected), so my guess is that they figured that half a loaf was better than none, and the best chance they had of getting a board that would be more pliant to their wishes was to let Ron’s buddies be the “anti-Tuller”.

      Hence a campaign where the opposition to the board hasn’t proposed any alternative agenda, but simply engaged in character assassination of Jeff; and the only alternative candidate who has campaigned, Sarah Vollrath, has conveniently omitted her membership in the prior board on her campaign piece, as well as her position as the responsible officer (Secretary), for the never timely release of the minutes of the prior board.

      So much for the recall being a fresh start, and a cure for the “negative campaign”. Have you read the sort of libel and insult coming from the rabid Tuller-haters?

      • I am looking at two pieces of Sarah Vollrath’s campaign material right now: her candidacy statement that came with the ballot, and her campaign flyer. The first one says “I have served on the board since being appointed to an open position in 2007” and the second says “From 2007-2009, I served (as one of two homeowners) on your San Elijo Hills Master Association Board.” Please share with us how that is considered “conveniently omitting her membership in the prior board.”

      • I have to admit, I just scanned Sarah’s mailer when I got it, and found it the typical breathless lots of hot air and no substance she had in her speechifying @ the candidate forum, and thus recycled it, so I probably missed the specific cops to being part of the prior, homeowner ignoring, board. They certainly weren’t front and center as her qualifications, which if she was proud of her service, or thought being on the prior board would make her more, rather than less, electable, you think they would have been.

        It was after that that I did some digging into her background. What I found showed me nothing I would vote for.

        Sarah was the Secretary of the former board, which never posted minutes within the time required by law (30 days).

        As the responsible officer for the lack of timely ratification and posting of minutes from the prior board, she should not be elected to the new one, IF the recall succeeds.

        SO, I think we’re starting to eke out who you’re FOR now. There is at least one candidate, who no surprise is a former board member, and from Morgan’s corner, who you are defending.

        Can you actually make a PRO statement, as in what, exactly, did you want the end result of your little chess game to be?

        Is there a slate you are actually wiling to be for, or are you going to let various anonymous proxies and astroturfers do your dirty work?

      • Tom,
        I love how you can villify Sarah, WITHOUT even reading her material thoroughly. You just admitted to it. It seems to me when someone pointed out your mistake, you conveniently blame Sarah for not putting it “front and center.” Do you ever take the blame for anything? It seems it’s always someone else’s fault, or their are nefarious reasons behind things. Before, you accuse me of being an astroturfer or annonymous proxy, I DO NOT know Ron G, I only know of him, Sue is my REAL name and I live in SEH.

      • How is making a statement of fact: She was the secretary of the prior board, and that board did not post the minutes in the REQUIRED BY LAW 30 day time; and therefore drawing the conclusion that, having failed to discharge her office when she had it (after being appointed as opposed to elected), she should not be elected to it this time: “Vilifying Sarah”?

        The ad-hominem “Vilifying”, as in accusing people of having hidden agendas, being engaged in nepotism, being “shady”, etc. etc. is all on the pro-recall side.

        If you are in favor of the recall, and don’t like the present board, there are several far more qualified candidates running than Sarah Vollrath.

        I guess, it you’re one of the partisans who want to go back to the status ante of a cozy rubber stamp for the developer and Walters board, just because that’s the whole point of the recall anyway, then Sarah is one of your candidates.

      • Tom,
        You missed my point. You stated (mistakenly) “…Sarah Vollrath, has conveniently omitted her membership in the prior board on her campaign piece, as well as her position as the responsible officer (Secretary), …” When you were confronted with the FACTS, that yes she had included it in her materials, you again state “They certainly weren’t front and center as her qualifications, which if she was proud of her service, or thought being on the prior board would make her more, rather than less than electable, you think they would have been.” You are BLAMING HER for your error.. She did not place them where YOU thought they should be. You scanned it “and found it the typical breathless lots of hot air and no substance she had in her speechifying @ the candidate forum, and thus recycled it,…”

        You don’t like her background, think she is unqualified and are highly critical. THAT TOM, is an opinion. NOT FACT. Some might say that describing her as “breathless lots of hot air and no substance” could be an ad hominen attack. That is what I meant by villifying.

        I did not bring up anywhere the meeting minutes or their being late. That is a fact. I was calling you out on you making assumptions, and when pointed out the mistake – you blame the other person. Make sure you read the whole post.

        Just because I wrote this and the previous post, does not mean I iintend to vote for Sarah. Your last paragraph is laughable. ” I guess, it you’re one of the partisans who want to go back to the status ante of a cozy rubber stamp for the developer and Walters board, just because that’s the whole point of the recall anyway, then Sarah is one.” Again, making assumptions. Tsk Tsk. Keep to the facts, Tom. You’re more intelligent that way.

    • Sue, I now see how you could have taken my post as being ad-hominem or vilifying Sarah, and so I apologize to Sarah first, and you second, if this was taken personally.

      I’m sure Sarah is a great Realtor. In fact, I’d bet on it (although I think she may talk past the close sometimes). She is also clearly a very positive individual, and would be a great chair of the events committee, IMO.

      You are correct, it is MY fault for not reading Sarah’s mailer in detail. I can’t blame her for my failure to read all of her wordy missive. It is my fault for letting my prejudice prevent me from giving it my full attention. This was caused by the fact that I was already disinclined to vote for her because, to me, she came off as a windbag @ the candidates forum, and her campaign piece continued in the same vein.
      However, if Sarah really was proud of her membership in the prior board, and thought that was likely to make her more, rather than less, electable, don’t you think she’d have made it her primary hook? Instead, she says she CAN do this, and wants to.

      Unfortunately for her, the evidence: the failure to timely post minutes, and that the final minutes of the board she served as Secretary of are signed, not by her, but by Hale Richardson, says that she either can’t do, or isn’t as dedicated to doing, the job as she is to selling herself.

      In summary: on rereading her candidate statement, and given the issues around timely posting of the minutes of the prior board, my opinion of her suitability, especially in a field of so many strong candidates, for a position in governance of an association with an approx $3M annual budget, and facing the issues ours does (especially given this recall), is unchanged. Sarah Vollrath should not be elected to the board.

      Regarding you personally: basic lexical analysis makes it clear you are both female, and the same person in each post, so I do not believe, and have never claimed, you are an astroturfer. Ditto for “dub”, Morgan, and “Concerned Local” (who are all male) as far as I know, although at least two of those show very close sentence strucutre proximity to other posters.

      BTW: this analysis doesn’t take me any time. Cybersecurity is my job, and natural language recognition and analysis was my first research paper a long time ago. I have computers running code I built to tack down hackers that I cut and paste stuff into that do this for me in my line of work, and I OWN them.

      You have the courage to at least use your real name.

      Further, “it” was a typo, I meant “if”, which wasn’t an assertion that you were for the status quo ante, just that for those who were, Sarah was the obvious candidate.

      I wasn’t’ saying YOU were for Sarah, just that if “one” (which is no longer used, and maybe should be in cases like this) were for the status quo ante, Sarah was the choice.

  • I hope all the talk about Jeff “giving the management contract to his neighbor” is a just a joke right. If I recall his neighbor owns Prescott Management Company which to my knowledge has recently been fired from several HOA Boards around San Diego County. I have a funny feeling they would probably submit a low-ball offer just to generate some kind of new business. I’m all for shopping Management Companies, if anything just to keep Walters honest. But who cares only about low bids if you don’t have a good reputation of fulfilling your duties.

    • I think it’s unlikely Jeff intends to give the contract to his neighbor. However, unfortunately, that’s the allegation that has been made, without any evidence other than one of the owners being Jeff’s neighbor, by the Tuller-haters here.

      What’s more likely is that the board would use Prescott as a stalking horse to get a better deal out of Walters.

      However, the “jump the gun” recall crowd have put any and all efforts to put pressure on Walters and HomeFed in jeopardy, and on hold.

      So, to answer your question of who benefits: look no further than the $ at stake. Even without running, by facilitating the recall, HomeFed and Watlers can only gain, if the SEH4, who ran on a platform of holding their feet to the fire, are stalled and/or weakened.

      They probably didn’t have to give Ron any quid pro quo other than agreeing not to run as quid, since the quo of the recall was plenty for them.

      • You DO know, don’t you, that HomeFed is not a vendor of the San Elijo Hills Community Association, and therefore there is no “fire” to hold their “feet” to? You do know, don’t you, that some of the thngs that have troubled the community about the developer (delays of the towncenter, for example), the HOA has no power over? So let’s try this again: what was the benefit to HomeFed to agree not to run candidates in the re-election?

      • Since, unlike you, I, and as far as I can tell, no-one other than you, was privvy to the conversation, I don’t know what the developer actually gets out of not running candidates. I have presented a few ideas, but they are conjecture. Since you’re the one who made the deal, maybe you can enlighten us all as to what was promised, or what they said when they agreed not to run candidates.

        I will offer a reason why HomeFed would do anything in their power to unseat the current board: As the representative of the community, the HOA board does have the ability to act in certain ways, whether as a bully pulpit in helping organize class action suit, or , as it specifically relates to deficiencies in the implementation of the landscaping, in making the developer pay for rectifying those deficiencies.

        HomeFed, per their recent SEC filings, are spending the minimum possible, given the current real estate environment, on marketing in San Elijo Hills, since they have not recently sold, and do not plan in the foreseeable future to sell, lots.

        As an example, despite a pre-tax gain of $1.85M on the sale of the visitor center, their entire annual budget for landscaping in SEH is $500K.

        Sources, 10Q, 4Q 09, HomeFed corp.

      • Above for “was privy to” I meant “was not privy to”. I was not, and as far as I know, no-one other than Ron was, privy to the conversation with HomeFed regarding running candidates if there was a recall petition.

        I do know, from Ron’s postings, that Ron talked to HomeFed about not running candidates before filing the peition, which is more than my neighborhood rep did with Woodley’s before signing it.

        So, HomeFed had more of a say about the filing of the petition than my neighborhood, and as far as I know, any neighborhood, with the possible exception of Morgan’s corner, did.

      • You asked: “Since you’re the one who made the deal, maybe you can enlighten us all as to what was promised, or what they said when they agreed not to run candidates.”

        Happy to answer: other than HomeFed agreeing not to run, nothing was promised, and there was no “deal.” A “deal” — at least from the standpoint of you hoping to prove that something improper was going on — would imply, for example, that I went to HomeFed and promised them that I’d start a re-election campaign if they would guarantee not to run. That’s simply not what happened. I’d already decided to investigate the re-election process, and, not wanting any potential subsequent election to take us down the “homeowner vs. developer” path again, simply asked them if they would agree not to place any candidates on the ballot if any such election were to come to pass.

        Furthermore, if HomeFed had NOT guaranteed not to run, that would not necessarily have been a deal-breaker. But I think most people — including Jeff Tuller — believe that taking the developer out of the re-election mix has been a GOOD thing.

        But, again, nothing was promised, including the fact that I didn’t even promise HomeFed that the re-election initiative would necessarily even happen, because I had yet to start making contact with neighborhood reps. You see, I’d made MYSELF a promise that if I couldn’t get close to 50% of the reps to sign, or if I found that several of them thought it was a bad idea, I would not have proceeded. And while not all reps signed the petition, only one contacted me to say she wasn’t sure about it and needed more time to think. The other reps either signed it, agreed with it but declined to sign for privacy or conflict-of-interest reasons, or ignored it. If there was opposition, I’d think someone — ANYONE — would have said “Wait just a minute here . . . ”

        So, despite you hoping to find a quid pro quo (for the folks out there, that’s Latin for “something for something” as in “you wash my back, I’ll wash yours”), none exists here.

      • Ron, I think this whole thing is “improper” albeit legal, given the timing, the reasons advanced, the lack of polling of the neighborhoods, and that you even discussed it with HomeFed at all, never mind before talking to the neighborhood reps.

        That it has been primarily, about name-calling at, and character assassination of, Jeff Tuller and the incumbent board, as opposed to any issues of substance has only made the whole situation worse.

        Are you seriously telling me that if HomeFed had told you that they WOULD rerun their candidates, it would have had no effect on your actions, or the probability of getting signatures (which, BTW, don’t total “representing” 50%, so you didn’t hit your number)?

        What would you have done if HomeFed had reneged on the commitment?

        How do you know that at least some of the new candidates weren’t asked to run by HomeFed and/or Walters?

        You made a deal, in private, with the developer, to not run candidates, before circulating the petition. That’s backroom, machine, politics 101.

      • Ron, stop being such a coward, and post the e-mail you sent to the reps soliciting their signatures in public.

        Until you do that, you are clearly hiding something.

  • You failed to mention the fact that the Prescott owner was at recall meeting and said “she didn’t personally know any of the candidates” and then proceeded to present an email that Ron had sent out claiming that the Management Co and Developer were on board with the recall, which was immediately shot down.

    • I don’t personally know all my neighbors, despite my best efforts, as many of them are very private, and some don’t even have English as a first language.

      It’s entirely possible that one or more of them may be someone who may want to do business with the company I am CEO of. If they did, I would make doubly sure I followed all procedures to avoid any semblance of conflict of interest. Given Jeff Tuller’s record as a CEO, I think he would likely do the same.

      How does their proximity in location to me represent an automatic conflict of interest in my selection of contractors?

      One of the big problems I’ve seen in this whole affair is a complete lack of understanding of governance, bidding processes, and general real-world contracting.

      It’s entirely possible that Cynthia Van Cleave is Jeff Tuller’s neighbor, and that they don’t know each other.

      He is a very successful sports equipment executive, and she is in the real estate management industry.

      Unless they have kids of the same age,and/or their spouses are social, the chances of them doing more than waving at each other on the way to and from work, and exchanging pleasantries, are pretty slim. Welcome to suburbia.

      As for the “immediately shot down” comment. What is more evidence of subterfuge: an implied conflict based on association; or a refusal to post something that should, since it was the genesis of this whole matter, be a matter of public record: Ron’s e-mail?

      Ron circulated an e-mail that led to this petition. If we are to truly have an open debate about the recall, then the original argument in favor should be in evidence. The failure to advance it, in the light, says all I need to know about the ethics of the proponents and the validity of the case for a recall.

    • She admitted at the meeting SHE DID know Jeff personally, after denying it several times. She also DID NOT want to give the name of her company until pressed to do so. Tom, I find it funny you will comment on something and you were not even at this meeting.

      Also, why would you mention some of your neighbors don’t have english as a first language. That has nothing to do with anything. The point is Cynthia was not being truthful. In other words, SHE LIED, until she was called out. Simple as that. Jeff also denied he knew her.

      • What does this have to do with the reasons advanced for the recall?

        As far as I can see, the real reason for the recall is that some people despise Jeff Tuller, and will do anything they can to prevent him from getting the view he paid for back. I don’t know what the poor man has done to deserve this animus, but I find it disgusting.

        As for the languages of my neighbors, it was pointing out just how diverse a community we are, and giving some idea why the electoral participation may not be as universal as you might think appropriate.

        This is a very bifurcated community as to architecture and history, which are good proxies for lifestyle and politics.

        This recall is widening, as opposed to narrowing, the “urban” versus “suburban” divide in SEH. That is NOT a good thing for our community, IMNSHO.

  • Does anyone know anything about the ballots and bagels event tomorrow morning in the visitor center? It’s sponsored by Hometown Realty and is from 9am to 11am. Are the candidates going to be there or just some? Seems odd that Hometown is sponsoring this because aren’t they affiliated with the developer? If it’s just an event to get people to turn in their ballots then it seems OK, but am wondering if it’s appropriate for candidates or others to campaign next to the ballot box. Is Walters going to be there? Am trying to decide whether to go, or if someone goes, then please post what happened and who was there.

    • Anyone can legally host anything they want, but clearly, the emphasis of this event is likely to be pro recall, given HomeTown’s ties to the status quo ante.

      I have to take care of my kids while my wife is @ a baby shower, so I’d appreciate it if someone bird-dogged the event.

  • Hometown Realty HAS NOTHING TO DO with Home Fed or the developer. They are simple trying to get the word out and make it convenient for people to get their ballots in. And NO I DO NOT have any ties to their office, but I do know one of the realtors. Please people, there is not always a conspiracy from people who do nice things in this community.

    • Hometown has their offices, and the genesis of their business, thanks to a cozy relationship with the developer and Walters. Are you REALLY saying that they aren’t pro recall?

  • Tom,

    Where is your evidence to the following statement?

    “Anyone can legally host anything they want, but clearly, the emphasis of this event is likely to be pro recall, given HomeTown’s ties to the status quo ante.”

    Have you personally discussed their postion with them? Or are you just guessing? Seems that you rail on anyone who does not present facts, but you have no problem doing it yourself.

    • Based on personal discussions with Hometown agents at various times, where they have always hinted at their “special” relationship with the developer.

  • You have no factual evidence to support your comment, otherwise you would have posted it verbatum. To “hint” at something is completly different than fact. I know a few of their realtors and one has flat out told me that they DO NOT have a “special” relationship. They rent space in the building that was owned by the developer and that is all. They are active in the community and have co-sponsor event the easter egg hunt. I hardly think that qualifies. You are grasping at straws.

    • I’m relaying a conversation I had with them several months ago. It’s direct personal experience. That is hardly grasping at straws.

Leave a Reply